Before I start working on a bigger post:
Much of EA philosophy on animal welfare attempts to dilute the difference between humans and non-human animals, which seems to be a fairly strong categorical difference for most people. That humans and non-human animals are categorically distinct seems to be based on the fairly big cognitive and communicative gap between humans and the smartest animals. Consequently it seems to me that reducing this gap by reviving intermediate species like Neandethals, Homo Erectus or similar that in these two cases are by definition human but not sapiens the ethical discussion who is included in human rights etc has to be restarted and if such a project got large enough even lawmakers might start reconsidering their foundation of this categorical distinction.
Any on thoughts on that? Ressources that completely wreck my Argument or maybe EAs/animal rights people that already studied this question to some extent?