Very interesting topic, ties in nicely with other ethical dilemmas we may face in the near future. If we do bring them back it would only be fair to do so in a sizeable mass (say 1,000 or so?). Then they would belong to a tribe of their own kind. But would they just be our pets in this scenario, an amusing sideshow for people to muse over?

To my understanding we either killed them off directly first time round or (more likely) sped them away to remote corners of Europe to hunt for resources that humans were obtaining in greater and greater quantities, until eventually they died off. This has in part been attributed to their lack of imagination. Could they adapt to the modern world in any real capacity? Could they grasp their history, and our role in it?

Ok, I know I'm not answering the question, It's a tough one, despite the very real negative scenarios involved. The possibility of resurrecting a highly sentient species, wow. What I will say though, is that, like many other rubicons over history, if it can happen, it will happen, it would seem to be only a question of time.

On a related topic, Patrick Dixon writes in "Futurewise" that

"It will not be long before humonkeys have been made. Perhaps such embryos already exist. The technology is proven. Hybrids are easy to create."

He goes on to ask how many human genes does an animal have to have to obtain human rights, a similar question to the one posed in that article about the rights of neanderthals in human society.

Ok, If forced to decide I would say yes (I think) mainly for the reason that if this isn't done openly and responsibly then it may be done by some private company somewhere driven mainly by profit.

---

There is no spoon.

Didn't know about humonkeys, very interesting.

I tend to agree that if it can be created, it will be created. I think that there are a lot of possible cases where we will create, intentionally, or inadvertently, a new species/type/race/hybrid. Humonkeys would be one example, Neanderthals another, robots another, and the merging of superior and synthetic parts into the human anatomy will create another. The result may be a sociological disaster, with the inferior type becoming slaves as the gap widens. Anger and rebellion would be logical reactions. So, I say, why create such a contentious situation?

I like Patrick Dixon's consideration about what it will take to obtain human rights. We consider animal rights more and more (as we should), as we become more enlightened as a species. At some point, will we extend those rights to robots, under the argument that complexity creates sentience? Personally, I have a different view - that the consciousness chooses its vehicle. If so, we may already have sentient robots, or soon (see upcoming posting in the Robots section)

and there's more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40N_u0gQrcE

---

There is no spoon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm