Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Just Because We Can, Doesn't Mean We Should

With the use of genetic techniques, it may be possible to resurrect extinct species. The question is whether we should do so. A nice ethical dilemma

http://www.care2.com/causes/should-we-resurrect-extinct-animals.html

What would be do with resurrect species? How can we teach a resurrected woolly mammoth, for example, how to behave like a mammoth should? Would we keep them in zoos to be gawked at and treated like a novelty, or would we want to re-establish them in the wild somewhere?

To reintroduce extinct species would be to dabble blindly with ecosystems that have generally evolved a high level of complexity, in a way like a single complex living entity. Humans have a talent for making healthy ecosystems sick. I'd say there are problems enough maintaining balanced and sustainable ecological systems, without introducing disruptive species, either extant or extinct. On the other hand, if the species are not to be allowed to live in the environment they evolved in - and they didn't evolve in zoos - then they should not be resurrected.

I agree. But I can see some starry-eyed academician getting off on the idea of having a living, breathing mastodon or woolly mammoth to play with. Or a saber-toothed tiger to study. And there will be those who say, "We have the technology, why not use it? Let's take it to the limits and see what we can do." There is a lot of ego to be stroked for being the first lab to successfully produce a woolly mammoth or saber-toothed tiger. It's like we are saying, "No abortions" and then what do we do with the children that get born because of that policy? It's one thing to produce the extinct animal, quite another to decide what to do with it once it's here. We haven't got such a good track record for caring for the animals we already have here. Not that I wouldn't welcome the return of some species, like the dodo bird and the passenger pigeon, but I think we tread a slimy and slippery slope when it comes to cloning animals that can actually do a great deal of damage if they got loose.

Species have been going extinct ever since there were species. I think there is a big difference between modifying our behaviour so that we can avoid causing creatures to become extinct, and trying to bring back species that have become extinct in the natural course of evolution. There was a reason for their extinction; it’s called natural selection.

Here’s a thought, though. We are part of nature, we, and our abilities, evolved through natural selection. Can we, therefore, claim that any human actions are contrary to nature, or to the progress of natural selection?

Could be years of discussion here.

You might want to rethink that about the passenger pigeon. It is believed that the breeding population for passenger pigeons was in the millions. I recall reading a historical novel set in colonial Virginia. In the story everybody in the household put on their oldest clothes and covered themselves up as much as possible to go out in the fields and try to protect their crops from the pigeons. It was a particularly nasty day. The fact is that passenger pigeons are just not compatible with modern agriculture.

Bill Gill

In my opinion it's unreasonable to "claim that any human actions are contrary to nature". As you say, we are an integral part of nature*** - which has produced perhaps billions of species over the past 3.5 billion yrs, and which has caused the extinction of the vast majority. We are, of course, novel in our ability to manipulate and modify our environment but, as you say again, that's a consequence natural selection. We could, owing to our inherent characteristics, quite easily join that silent majority sooner rather than later; or we could survive to populate other worlds. Looks like it's all or nothing.

*** There may be arguments regarding the meaning of "nature". I'm using the word to mean: the laws of physics and their resulting manifestations - specifically, in this context, all living things.

lets think about the diabolical side of it...

a army of Tyrannosaurus Rex!




just think of the possibilities of a newer new world order

and for those fortunate ones who think they can escape by hiding in the underground survival shelters that the tax payers paid for but aren't invited in to survive , a battalion of graboids to perform global search and destroy missions.

I'm not talking about having millions and millions of passenger pigeons. I had no idea they were such a hassle. But a few thousand, kept in check by regular culling and birdie birth control, would be nice to have around. Exceptional numbers of anything are bound to become a problem. And perhaps we need to pay more attention to the species we have, such as the manatee, that may go extinct in our lifetimes because of human destruction of their habitat and injuries on our boat propellers. The person who invents an animal-safe boat motor would deserve to make a lot of money from it.

http://www.savethemanatee.org/