[FlowNote]

Neanderthals aren't legally human and organoids do not have awareness in the manner you are attempting to establish. Interestingly, a network of organiods, connected via neuromorphic arbiters, could provide some interesting intepretations of awareness, especially when the organoids cross species lines.

From a national security perspective, the West has to get over its crippling squeamishness on all things genomics or else the Chinese will completely dominate the neuromorphic space.

From a moral perspective, if you are concerned about stopping slavery, I recommend tackling actual instances of it, such as the open air slave markets in Libya or addressing the valid concerns of any one of the hundreds of millions of rural Chinese.

From an ethical standpoint, there are a couple federally funded institutions that traffic stem cells who could use some spotlight in them.

I'm unsure if a religious institution mired in worldwide pedophilia accusations is the right party you want to associate with to stop this. I recommend stepping off the soapbox for a moment and try explaining, precisely, how many neurons are required for the sentience you are describing. Is it 1? 10? 1,345?

Quantifying sentience is your burden. Blanket policies of "all neurons are sacred" are prematurely alarmist.

[jonmrodriguez]

Please understand that I have no problem with genetic engineering in general, and am probably one of the few people on this thread with genetic engineering experience. I have customized a DNA sequence and had my custom version synthesized into a plasmid, which worked as designed. I am a huge proponent of genetic engineering technology when applied to extend human life and augment human capabilities.

I think that an arms race mentality is a dangerous approach to engineering ethics. I would rather that the arms race of the Cold War have been avoided if it were possible, even if it meant one or both sides being willing to lag behind when it comes to ethically dangerous technology.

Do you have a citation for the supposition that Neanderthals are not legally human? I believe that the legal personhood of Neanderthals has not yet been established, and would likely have to go the Supreme Court. If legal personhood was denied to Neanderthals (homo sapiens neanderthalensis), would you say that it should be denied to mentally challenged homo sapiens sapiens as well?

I am Catholic and have no choice but to align with the Vatican. I am just trying to do the right thing no matter whether it's with the help of a national government, a religious authority, or simply individuals who want to do the right thing.

Please don't accuse me of not doing enough. I have invested 10 years of my salary into animal welfare companies and outrighted donated 2 years of my salary to other philanthropic organizations including medical and educational organizations. I'm just trying to do the best I can and there's not much more I can do.

[FlowNote]

Minor modifications to your genome miss the mark. We didn't master metallurgy to gently carve our names into tree bark. We plow entire forests.

Arms races exist regardless of your preference for narrative. The Chinese have zero concerns for forging chimera for any purpose they choose. That's the reality right now. Meanwhile, the Western response is to empower moral supremacists who all believe we're one random CRISPR event from an accidental Holocaust. It's neurotic paranoia rooted exclusively in cultural instability and it's for children.

Neanderthals aren't human for the same reason celery isn't human. Just because we may have a shared genetic branch (sharing in genomic expression is a ton more complicated than linear composition comparison) does not grant the entire mass of biology with human rights. Fighting for the human rights of non-humans is misguided bourgeoisie neurosis at best when you consider the entirety of human suffering that exists within a 500 foot radius of whereever you may be. Your desperate conflation to associate Neanderthals with, wow, the mentally disabled precisely proves my point.

Some science on the matter, which I suspect will have little influence on the subject (Never doubt the ability of moral supremacists to anthropomorphize): https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/no-human-dna-found-in-nea...

Stuck backing the Catholic horse, eh? How many Neanderthals have been baptized and why has the Church clearly denied the noble Neanderthal such divine access to God's love? Perhaps a retcon is in order and we can throw in the Austropithicine for good measure. This, of course, presupposes an agreement that there were "humans" before Adam or that homosapien evolution is valid. Genesis is going to take a hit here, one way or another...

My question still remains: Precisely how many neurons count as sentience, or are we Overton Window dancing to see if we can start with a "all neurons are sacred" policy?

[dragonwriter]

> Neanderthals aren't legally human

Them being extinct for 40K years leave a paucity of cases on the topic, but I don't think there is any firm grounding for that claim.