• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If a subhuman species was created (similar to Neandrethals),

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
i think the main deciding factor is if they are self aware. it is assumed animals are not self aware and hence do not have concepts like personal freedom or death. raising a chicken simply for slaughter while perhaps the conditions may not be optimal, the animal certainly has no idea what it is in for, what it could be missing, or fear its existence being taken away.

so it depends if the neanderthals pass this litmus test. if you smart enough to know your a slave then it is unethical for most purposes.
 
Originally posted by: unsped
i think the main deciding factor is if they are self aware. it is assumed animals are not self aware and hence do not have concepts like personal freedom or death. raising a chicken simply for slaughter while perhaps the conditions may not be optimal, the animal certainly has no idea what it is in for, what it could be missing, or fear its existence being taken away.

so it depends if the neanderthals pass this litmus test. if you smart enough to know your a slave then it is unethical for most purposes.
I agree with this.
 
Well, pigs and cows display some amazing intelligence, but some of us eat them.

Does that answer your question?
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
My subjects will know not the pain of knowledge, only the joy of obedience. They will see their sovereign and His will, not their own, and they will rejoice in His service.

you remind me of a young jehova.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What if we made apes a little smarter, got them cool 70's jumpsuits, and put them to work doing simple jobs like cleaning?

He can talk he can talk he can talk he can talk! I can SIIINNNGGG!!!!

LOL @ Wilbur
 
Depends if they were self aware. If there is self awareness, there is the potential for growth, and that would make it unethical. Animals don't care one way or the other, as long as they get food and water.
 
It's no different than our current use of other sub-human animals like Britney Spears or pro athletes for our amusement. I'd be all for it.
 
if they have the mindset of an animal, then yes, enslave them. we enslave other work-orientated animals anyways... we are animals just like every other mammal on this earth. we're just smarter. i guess what i'm saying is, if they can't think rationally, and base all their actions off instinct, then i say treat 'em like an animal, not that that is bad or anything, of course.
 
What makes the use of humans as slaves 'wrong' and 'uncivilized'?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong about anything. WE make it "wrong" w/the stuff we call morals, ethics, etc.
 
what if the mental capacity of a mentally retarded person is less than or equal to the mental capacity of the sub-human in question?

is it ok to put the retards of america into slave labor? (and would it do any good??)
 
Or they could be made into modern day serfs (via economic classes). In England they had no idea they were essentially slaves.
 
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: rahvin
Neandertals were if not as smart as modern humans were very very close. Go back a little further, say Habilus. The issue you would run into is controlling them. Without language and culture they would behave in very animal like ways and much like modern great apes they would be extremely violent once they passed adolesence. Most chimps are extremely dangerous. There is a reason you don't find them as domestic servants. Almost any adult chimp could rip your arms off and beat you to death with the stumps.

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200211/200211shadow_trees.html
By the time guards arrived, the chimp had disemboweled the toddler and begun to consume her brain.
:Q


Then they tried to downplay it by saying, "Oh, that's just normal chimp behavior". In the past, we'd kill them all off for exhibiting violent behavior towards humans. Hell, I kill cats that scratch me.
 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Text


Copyright The Times, London


RED hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, scientists believe. Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford say that the so-called "ginger gene" which gives
people red hair, fair skin and freckles could be up to 100,000 years old.

They claim that their discovery points to the gene having originated in Neanderthal man who lived in Europe for 200,000 years before Homo sapien settlers, the ancestors of modern man, arrived from Africa about 40,000 years ago.

Rosalind Harding, the research team leader, said: "The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years.

"An explanation is that it comes from Neanderthals." It is estimated that at least 10 per cent of Scots have red hair and a further 40 per cent carry the gene responsible, which could account for their once
fearsome reputation as fighters.

Neanderthals have been characterised as migrant hunters and violent cannibals who probably ate most of their meat raw. They were taller and stockier than Homo sapiens, but with shorter limbs, bigger faces
and noses, receding chins and low foreheads.

The two species overlapped for a period of time and the Oxford research appears to suggests that they must have successfully interbred for the "ginger gene" to survive. Neanderthals became extinct about 28,000 years ago, the last dying out in southern Spain and southwest France.


This was pretty much debunked a while back after scientists looked at the DNA of humans and neanderthals and realized that they were not compatible. They couldn't have cross-bred, and no genes from neanderthals were ever found in humans, even in fossils from that period which looked like they might have been a cross.
 
Originally posted by: unsped
i think the main deciding factor is if they are self aware. it is assumed animals are not self aware and hence do not have concepts like personal freedom or death

Scientists have proven that some primates and dolphins are self-aware.
 
Originally posted by: eLiu
What makes the use of humans as slaves 'wrong' and 'uncivilized'?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong about anything. WE make it "wrong" w/the stuff we call morals, ethics, etc.

"Morals" are for the working class. Ruling class doesn't have "morals". They have control.

Working class is like slavery, only we delude ourselves with morals and ethics and "freedom" to make us think that we arn't making money for someone above us.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: unsped
i think the main deciding factor is if they are self aware. it is assumed animals are not self aware and hence do not have concepts like personal freedom or death

Scientists have proven that some primates and dolphins are self-aware.

HTF do you prove that?
 
Originally posted by: unsped
i think the main deciding factor is if they are self aware. it is assumed animals are not self aware and hence do not have concepts like personal freedom or death. raising a chicken simply for slaughter while perhaps the conditions may not be optimal, the animal certainly has no idea what it is in for, what it could be missing, or fear its existence being taken away.

so it depends if the neanderthals pass this litmus test. if you smart enough to know your a slave then it is unethical for most purposes.


So, by this logic, the Matrix would be morally/ethically acceptable?
 
No need for sub human species to be created and exploited.

Plenty of Humans being created every day to be exploited. Unfortunately.
 
Back
Top