Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Homo Floresiensis
Homo Floresiensis is a tiny, hairy species of humans that existed on the island of Flores, probably as recently as 12,000 years ago or less. Could other similar species remain to be found, isolated on islands or in rainforests? Would we consider members of the species Homo Floresiensis to be human, if they were found today?

No...because they aren't human (Homo Sapiens). But I would treat them like humans. (Unless they are on par with apes or want to kill us all)

Ladies and Gentlemen.....we've discovered hobbits.

I think that homo sapiens existed in that area 12000 years ago, and made the florensian into their slaves

Shouldnt we try & reat teh species/races we already know about with equality & respect without worrying about what else might be 'out there'?

Die hobbits!

Wow, Im reading the National Geographic artical about this right now... strange Coincidence....

That would bring up a strange ethical question....
But what it boils down to, are they sentient? Do they know of their own existance, because thats what really separates humans from animals

Wow, somebody was doing bong hits while studying anthropology

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Wow, Im reading the National Geographic artical about this right now... strange Coincidence....

That would bring up a strange ethical question....
But what it boils down to, are they sentient? Do they know of their own existance, because thats what really separates humans from animals
That kind of logic didn't work for the blacks.

Survival of the fittest. Unless these little furry people shoot fireballs from their eyes. they have to take seat as number two on the food chain. theres to many people to worry about already. Who need a new species of things that want social security.

I'd want one as a pet.

Heh slip it would most probobly make you its pet

It's sad that people on this page are answering this question with any seriousness at all, especially considering the sarcastic nature intended by the thread starter.

I had a feeling Napalm was being too serious to be serious

They were probably used a sworker slaves by the superior homosapiens. And there might even have been some inbreeding

You're approaching this question from the stand point that the original post takes into consideration more than the word "homo". As in 'a member of the Human family species'.

do homo's deserve rights??

Originally posted by Napalm
Homo Floresiensis
Homo Floresiensis is a tiny, hairy species of humans that existed on the island of Flores, probably as recently as 12,000 years ago or less. Could other similar species remain to be found, isolated on islands or in rainforests? Would we consider members of the species Homo Floresiensis to be human, if they were found today?
if I'm not mistaken...:
if the name has "homo" in it, it's not only humanoid, it's much closer connected to us, homo sapiens as it is the same class/sort

but when do you speak of human? what fundamental boundries has it passed? braincapacity? making tools? standing upright? genetic differences?
if you look at the homininae gorillinae: nothing of these

for the Floresiensis, I have to go out on a limp and remember what the prof told, cause I forgot my coursebook with a friend... the current idea is that they evolved from the homo erectus, who to the new theory went to the easy after leaving africa. The homo erectus then evolved into the Homo Floresiensis because of their isolated enviroment, but the prof stressed that up to this point in time it is still very highly debated where it fits in exactly

OK...Give them a chance and if they can behave themselves then their in.

Infact, if might be nice. I'd be considered tall! Wow!

Now lets talk about interrelation marriages...

Originally posted by SlipknoT
I'd want one as a pet.



But are they house trained?