> Without their culture, community, and absolute freedom to roam the planet and carve a corner for themselves, they would be another zoo/museum curiosity, a bio

> Without their culture, community, and absolute freedom to roam the planet and carve a corner for themselves, they would be another zoo/museum curiosity, a biological anomaly paraded before us for pennies. By this argument, we should destroy all zoos and let the species in them die off. It's counter to all biological knowledge. > Even if a sizable population of them were granted full human rights and a habitat, they would forever owe us their existence, and their debt to humans would hang over anything they achieve for themselves in terms of growth and survival. So? How is that different from the debt you owe your parents? > Our future generations will also treat them as an experiment gone awry, should they ever threaten the slightest human interest. This happens to minority ethnic groups all the time. Look at the new Arizona immigration law. > It's hard enough watching dying racial and linguistic minority groups; their last remaining few members made into coursework for "our" undergraduates. So... trying to understand ourselves is morally wrong? It's horrible to preserve our dying ways as best we know how? > Bringing back a Neanderthal is to kill him twice, after granting him a brief purposeless life for our own edutainment. Let them rest in peace. This applies equally to the California condor and the panda. We should just let all endangered species rest in peace, I suppose.