Why would anyone be opposed to de-extinction?

[LearningCurve]

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I've had discussions with several people, many of whom consider the fact that some species are endangered a tragedy. Some of these same people however, are opposed to bringing back extinct species through cloning. I'm curious why there is opposition to this idea. On the contrary, I almost consider it a moral imperative to return species to the Earth that humanity was responsible for eliminating.

Edited to include a link to such a project, that addresses many of the points raised in this thread.

[geek tragedy]

1. Terrible use of resources--there are enough species in need of protection. nt

[LearningCurve]

22. Let's say this doesn't come from public funds

If the resources came from people who might otherwise buy a yacht, what would be the opposition then?

[geek tragedy]

24. The now-extinct species would be an invasive and potentially disruptive one.

Also, they went extinct for a reason. What would be different this time?

Also also, trying this would give a false sense of complacency regarding other species--don't worry about saving this species of bird because of habitat destruction, we could always bring it back.

[LearningCurve]

28. The last point was made in a documentary I recently saw

Interesting, I thought that feeling was isolated.

[Scootaloo]

57. False on several levels

There are several ecosystems that are still reliant on animals that are now extinct.

For an example, have you ever thought about an avocado? No, probably not. Well, the avocado is the world's biggest berry, a huge seed wrapped in a fleshy pericarp. They grow on trees in these huge clusters. How do they spread, you might ask? Well.. .they don't do so very well. Those big heavy fruits fall right under the tree, where they rot - and the rotting tends to kill the seed. Which is far too large to be carried away by birds or rodents. So even if it sprouts, it's probably right beneath its parent tree, and is unlikely to survive competing. The same problem exists for several other American plant species, such as the paw-paw, osage orange, and agaves.

Now, it's very likely these plants evolved for their seeds to be carried around in something's gut and deposited elsewhere when it evacuates. Lots of plants do this (blackberries, for an easy example.) And indeed, all these plants' seeds can survive a trip through intestine-town. In fact avocados sprout more easily when their endosperm is weakened and a little damaged. Now the trouble is, obviously there's no wildlife large enough to gulp down a seed THAT large living in the Americas. Right?

Well, there used to be:

Yep. Ground sloths. We know this for a fact because we've actually found ancient sloth crap that contains these seeds. They were an essential part of the ecosystems in North and South America.

A similar problem exists on Mauritius, where a large number of the endemic plant species are reliant on being eaten and crapped out by dodos.

The taiga and tundra biomes are both evolved to be megafauna habitats as well; mammoths in particular. The Eurasian steppe developed with bison (wisent) and horses trampling and grazing all over the place - as did the American plains system.

And then we have places like Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and Madagascar, which have all been HEAVILY disrupted by extinction.

Also that "they went extinct for a reason"? Yeah, the reason mostly being that they were presumably tasty. Or in the case of the dodo, because they were just easy for bored sailors to kill (Really, that's why they killed the birds, the flesh was apparently inedible - according to people who'd been living off rotten biscuit for a nine-month voyage.)

It would, in fact, be the opposite of "invasive." Now I suppose you could make some shortcuts - if you introduced Indian elephants to the Americas, they'd fill in for the ground sloths rather nicely, at least in forested habitat, and feral horses can easily take over for wild horses in the Americas. American bison could possibly fill in for the wisent, which is effectively extinct. So on and so forth.

Your argument that it'll make people stop worrying about endangered species is silly, because the process of de-extinction is VASTLY more of a pain in the neck than preserving what exists already. In terms of economy, it just makes way more sense to preserve endangered species and their habitat. In fact your earlier argument of "they went extinct for a reason" is the sort of thinking that leads to lack of preservation for endangered animals.

[geek tragedy]

59. So, why didn't avocados go extinct after ground sloths did?

In any event, this is a science fiction discussion, not policy. Might as well be debating the propriety of the Federation continuing its cloaking technology.

[Scootaloo]

61. Because that's not how it works

Seed dispersal is still possible. Maybe the fruit rolls down a hill, or is washed away by rain, or a jaguar tripping on ayahuasca decides to play ball with it, who knows? Point is, the existing methods are far less reliable than a giant sloth gulping down a whole cluster of the things, and passing them as it waddles through the forest. And in point of fact, all of these plants are in steady decline in the wild (though we cultivate avocados for food and osage orange as a second-rate ornamental.)

And it is in fact not science fiction. We're not talking Jurassic park here. We actually have available samples of usable DNA from all the critters I mentioned so far, plus plenty of others besides. Hides, flesh, those ancient dungheaps I mentioned. I'll grant the sloth is at the far end of the spectrum (it would have to be gestated artificially, since the closest living relative is about the size of a two year old child) but the concept is not at all far-fetched.

[geek tragedy]

64. And who would teach these animals how to eat, and breed, and avoid predators, or

prey upon others, etc etc?

[Scootaloo]

67. That's a fair question

We don't know how much is learned behavior and how much is inborn. This is an especially appropriate question when it comes to the mammoth, since we have no reason to presume that it was any less reliant on mammoth society than elephants are on elephant society. The passenger pigeon as well, seemed reliant on large flocks.

Of course, pretty much everything a California condor needs to get by in life is taught by parents. We managed to effectively de-extinct this creature by using the amazing, cutting-edge, science-fiction technology of... sock puppets.

(who says all baby animals are cute? Yugh.)

These questions are being mulled over and theorized on, long before anyone starts getting the test tubes ready. We're not talking a John Hammond "fuck it, make dinosaurs and throw them on an island to see what happens" stuff here.

[Metatron]

60. What a great post!

I knew that we hunted the dodos to extinction but was unfamiliar with your other examples. Thanks, Scootaloo, I really learned a lot.

[LearningCurve]

62. I'll concur with that sentiment here

Thanks for that reply.

[awoke_in_2003]

38. We've already seen that movie...

just kidding.

[msanthrope]

41. Beat me to it....

[bravenak]

2. They'd just die out again.

We use up too much of the earths resources fir them to have a chance. Maybe some small birds could make it.

[CBGLuthier]

3. You think we really need more dodo birds?

Species went extinct before man arrived you know. All the time. More times than we could even count.

[LearningCurve]

14. It's not really a need

And yes, species went extinct mankind played no part in. But for those that mankind exterminated, is there a rational argument against bringing them back?

[FSogol]

72. Sure. Dodo Nuggets, Dodo Wings with Buffalo Sauce, Dodo Strips.....

[branford]

75. Heh. :)

[quinnox]

4. not me, I would love to see dinosaurs running around

Jurassic Park would be awesome!

[LearningCurve]

11. Finally someone is talking sense!

My desires are more modest, I'd like to see the giant lemur return. I love their smaller cousins, the big one gets the top spot on my list.

[kentauros]

36. Naw, I'd rather see more calderas and asteroid impacts.

Physical geology was always way more fun than historical (fossil) geology!

[LearningCurve]

54. Curse you and your competing science!

[JVS]

5. You could badly damage an ecosystem by bringing back one animal without bring back its predator.

[LearningCurve]

16. True

I don't think every species should be brought back without careful thought as to the consequences. But what about something like the Tasmanian Tiger?

[demwing]

6. Two Words

[Xipe Totec]

7. The Smallpox virus is now extinct in the wild.

Do you really want to resurrect it?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

[quinnox]

12. yikes! Did you really need to post such a huge blow up picture of that?

[closeupready]

105. Yeah, that was really tacky, and rude.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. and people don't think we need vaccines anymore.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. We don't need smallpox vaccines anymore. N.T.

[Marrah_G]

53. Actually, we hope we won't need smallpox vaccines anymore

Smallpox is not actually extinct. There are still two labs that have it. One in Russia and one in the US. They were never destroyed like they were supposed to be.

[LearningCurve]

17. For the record, I'm opposed to bringing back smallpox

What's the argument against the mammoth?

[awoke_in_2003]

39. Too damn hot. nt

[LearningCurve]

42. By hot do you mean sexy?

If so, I may find myself reluctantly in agreement.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. Maybe...

seriously, I don't think we have a climate that will support them with the way the poles are warming.

[Xipe Totec]

47. Knock yourself out. Just don't use public funds. nt

[MattBaggins]

92. should we not use public funds to save the polar bear?

[Xipe Totec]

104. The Polar Bear is extinct? That's news to me

What kind of logic leads you to conclude that not spending public money to resurrect Mammoths implies not spending public money for <fill in your favorite philanthropic quest>?

[MattBaggins]

110. Very good logic

If it is OK to try to save the polar bear, down to the very last one, would it be OK if they do die off, to save their DNA and in the near future clone them back into existence?

If it we ought to save species near extinction, isn't saving their DNA for perhaps our grandchildren to bring back also acceptable?

If it would be OK to save the Polar bear in such a manner why not bring back the passenger pigeon? What is the point backwards in time that we stop?

Do we keep trying to preserve the polar bear until the last one drops dead and then throw up our hands and say "oh well"?

[Xipe Totec]

114. That applies to Polar Bears (maybe)

But why focus on saving a single species, when it's the environment that's going to hell?

If you fix the environment, you solve the problem not only for the polar bear, but for all the other species as well...

Isn't that a more worthwhile goal?

After all, you can save the polar bears by putting them in refrigerated zoos.

Is that what you want?

[TorchTheWitch]

68. why do you think the mammoth died out in the first place?

We don't have an environment for them to live in, nor the type and amount of fodder for them to eat nor the right type of predator to control their numbers. Mammoths and many other species died out naturally with the end of the ice age. These animals arrived specifically to fill a niche the ice age provided and which the planet no longer has.

Nature knows what it's doing when it comes to the environment including which species to create or destroy at any given time. Historically, it's humans that keep fucking up what nature never had a problem with.

[LearningCurve]

69. It is generally agreed mammoths were hunted into extinction

Here's a link to a video on mammoth extinction. It is less than 30 minutes. It also offers an alternative theory to extinction, the introduction of disease by humans. One way or another, we killed them.

[TorchTheWitch]

77. baloney

Nobody believes that. Mammoth were never extensively hunted to begin with. They simply lost their niche environment of the steppe regions at the base of glaciers. They required and were exclusively built for that extreme yet dry cold, and their daily requirements of fodder were only available to them and other similarly adapted grazing species by the fast growing steppe grasses that only could survive in such necessary quantity in this specific region where soil was not rich, but dry light particles in only a very thin layer. Without these vast steppe regions at the base of glaciers mammoth could not exist, and without the glaciers the steppe regions didn't exist.

Humans couldn't live in that environment where there was no natural shelter, no unfrozen water, and no vegetation other than the steppe grasses. They had to travel great distances for a single hunt which required several small groups of humans that band together for enough hunters and butchers as well as special flint blades both large enough and thin enough to pierce their tough hides. It also required a natural canyon barrier to drive them into which meant they couldn't even make an attempt without having to follow the herd for some time before their provisions were used up and being lucky enough to not only find such a natural blind canyon but be able to drive the herd into it. Killing ONE single mammoth was all they could normally accomplish and the only practical thing to do since they couldn't haul it all back to their homes - it all had to be carried. Remember, this was an age when very few humans even lived on the earth much less in the general vicinity of the steppe regions and hadn't yet invented the use of animals to assist in hauling large loads nor the equipment such as a pole drag or cart - everything they carried had to be carried on their own backs. The average ice age human that even lived in the vicinity of where mammoth lived likely never went on a mammoth hunt but once in their entire lives if ever.

Hunted to extinction??? What rubbish. Mammoth died out because the unique environment they required disappeared during the last and most significant glacial retreat.

[LearningCurve]

83. I assume you didn't watch the video

I'll try to summarize. The video focuses on the mammoths in North America, and lays out 3 possibilities. The first, is climate change. Climate change is discussed within the context of what was occurring in the Americas at the time. The conclusion reached, was was that climate change theory was insufficient to account for the disappearance.

The second, was hunting. The reason for the assumption is partially circumstantial, mammoths disappeared in the Americas shortly after humans arrived. Evidence of clovis points found among mammoth bones, plus use of mammoth bones in tools is contributing evidence to the theory. Additional evidence, is the disappearance of other animals, hunted to extinction by newly arriving humans. Horses had to be reintroduced to the Americas, for instance. There are some skeptics in the video, for some of the reasons you cite.

The third reason, is disease. Evidence for this includes bones of mammoths during times when humans were present, that seemed to show sick mammoths. Possibilities include direct transmission, or from domesticated dogs introduced by newly arriving humans. I am not aware of any current study which still holds to climate change as the reason for mammoth extinction in the Americas.

That being said, I am unfamiliar with studies done in Eurasia. If you are referring to climate change as the reason for their disappearance there, I'm not informed enough to know one way or the other.

[Scootaloo]

76. Untrue, actually

We don't have an environment for them to live in

Even if we assume that "mammoth" means "woolly mammoth" (there are a few other "recent" species contemporary with man) we actually have plenty of woolly mammoth range. They weren't a niche species, and basically spread to whatever environments in the northern hemisphere didn't already have an elephant. Steppe, taiga, deciduous forest, even the subtropical coastal plains of the southern US (they were plains at the time anyway) harbored woolly mammoths. Were it not for the asiatic elephant and the columbian mammoth, they probably would have lived all over Eurasia and the western US as well.

nor the type and amount of fodder for them to eat

Again, these weren't giant pandas. Know what woolly mammoths ate? Plants. Nothing specific, just... plants. If it grew in dirt, they crammed it in their mouths. We know this because we actually have woolly mammoth stomachs full of exactly that. We're not exactly seeing a shortage of alder and sedge grass anywhere.

nor the right type of predator to control their numbers

I'm curious - what predator, exactly, do you think that would be? For a moment, imagine we're talking about a creature that is, as far as we can tell, a hairy analogue to the African elephant... because it is. What eats African elephants? Well, there's some desperate lions in the kalahari who'll occasionally have a go at an elephant, and crocodiles will grab a baby elephant just as they will anything else. The Asiatic elephant's young were apparently occasionally taken by tigers, but that was rare. I think in the case of the woolly mammoth, the only credible predators would have been the Siberian tiger and the short-faced bear... and even both of them would have only targeted opportunistically and were never a serious factor. Essentially the woolly mammoth had no real predator woes. The biggest causes of mortality for them were probably falling into large holes, disease, and fights between bulls. Which makes sense for a species that has a two-year gestation, a five-year weaning, and matures at the age of fifteen.

Mammoths and many other species died out naturally with the end of the ice age.

The end of which ice age? Woolly mammoths (to say nothing of other mammoths) lived through several ice ages. The one they didn't survive was the last glacial retreat... which saw the introduction of a certain tool-using, fire-making primate into mammoth habitat.

These animals arrived specifically to fill a niche the ice age provided and which the planet no longer has.

Given that environments adapted to being gnawed on, trampled by, and shit upon by mammoths still exist, I would have to argue with this notion.

Nature knows what it's doing when it comes to the environment including which species to create or destroy at any given time. Historically, it's humans that keep fucking up what nature never had a problem with.

Like yearly stabbing / crushing to death thousands of slow-growing, long-gestating, highly-social large herbivores, fragmenting their continuity while reducing their numbers and eventually rendering them extinct?

[liberal_at_heart]

8. time does not flow backwards. The time and environment they would be coming back to is different,

so thier species would have a different outcome than when they were originally here. Maybe reintroducing them causes dozens of others to go extinct or maybe a species that is more dominant now kills them off as soon as we re-introduce them. I am sad to know that we are the cause of such mass extinction in the world, but someday we will die off and the Earth will repopulate naturally with new plants and animals. The Earth will probably flourish once we're gone. Until then I'm not sure what would be the point. We would just kill them off again eventually anyway.

[mike_c]

9. not opposed, but cautious about the details....

Mainly, I wonder whether that moral imperative extends to managing the genetic bottleneck that would result. I mean, even if one produced a whole flock of passenger pigeons, just to pick a species off the top of my head, they'd still be fixed with regard to just about every allele for a long, long time. I suppose that's a good argument for including significant genetic diversity in tissue banks for species that are on an extinction trajectory but not there yet, although even while still extant there would probably be too little population level variance for long term viability.

On the other hand, founder populations demonstrate that genetic bottlenecks can be overcome, but often require further speciation.

[LearningCurve]

18. Caution I can understand

I don't think people should go crazy and de-extinct everything at once, even if possible. The passenger pigeon is a good example of something I'd like to see returned.

[Quantess]

10. In person? Sounds like you have some interesting discussions!

I think it sounds like a great project, but I wonder if the funds would be available for such an endeavour?

Are the people opposed to it opposed to cloning?

[LearningCurve]

20. I have an eclectic group of people I converse with

The funds aren't there, mainly because there is no profit incentive, amusement parks aside. There are cheaper ways to make a theme park. The people who tend to be opposed to it are not universally opposed to cloning. This is one thing I find so surprising, a lot of people that I consider pro-science seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against de-extinction. Maybe they feel that the animals may take revenge, I'm not sure.

[Skidmore]

13. So are you the guy in the movie

who is the scientist who brings back the velociraptors or the rich guy who funds the lab?

[LearningCurve]

19. The guy who funds the lab

By default, the science of genetics is something I've only got a semi-working layman's knowledge of.

[Scootaloo]

63. Crichton has a lot to answer for...

Like turning chicken-sized vermin-eaters into seven-foot ultrapredators.

[LearningCurve]

71. I'll say he does

As well as scaring so many people against the idea of de-extinction.

[Scootaloo]

78. Interesting to see a sci-fi writer telling people to be afraid of science, huh?

[LearningCurve]

85. Yeah, Always found that odd

It's a common theme in many of his books. I see him as giving science a conscience, discussing ethics of things before they are attempted. I do wonder if that is the intent, because he really can scare the Hell out of you with the consequences.

[redgreenandblue]

21. I like the idea of building a database of DNA patterns to clone creatures on demand from.

I am not opposed to de-extinction, although whether it makes sense for a particular species would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I don't think cloning dinosaurs or trying to de-extinct other species that became extinct naturally is necessarily a good idea. But dodos, or other species which became extinct directly through humans I would be in favor of.

Cloning a few of these would also be nice:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo

[LearningCurve]

25. Nice one

I'll add this rascal to my list.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. Human intervention.

I am against bringing back species that had gone extinct for reasons other than the effect the human race has on the planet. I am in favor of protecting, and even reestablishing species endangered, or made extinct, due to the effect the human race has had on the planet.

[LearningCurve]

26. This is close to my view

I'd be in favor of working backwards, from most recent to most distant. Those that died off for reasons other than human intervention, I'd look at the benefits and hazards much more closely.

[Scootaloo]

66. Well, luckily...

It seems that critters that went extinct before we started stabbing things with spears, went extinct too long ago for DNA to be preserved anyway.

Even if we really wanted to, we couldn't bring back brontotherium or moropus or creodonts. Much less dinosaurs.

[Tien1985]

27. Because most of them

Would go extinct again in the blink of an eye, wasting billions if dollars and a lot of time.

Any species we would want to bring back would have to have left a good store of DNA for us to pull from, have a habitat available for it (which is what many have died from to begin with), and have some other animal close enough like it to carry it to term and bear it until we had enough to procreate on their own. And that wouldn't help us recreate the culture/behavior or the animals we brought back to life.

We can barely keep endangered animals from going extinct. We would have to think VERY carefully before we even thought about trying this.

[LearningCurve]

29. A common thread I'm starting to see is waste of resources

What if the price was, say, the same as that of making a Hollywood blockbuster?

[Tien1985]

33. Then I still wouldn't

Want it to come out of my tax money unless it was extremely well thought out prior to them ever attempting it. Someone recently posted an article about how giant ground sloths would be a good candidate for reintroduction. I think that would be worth looking into, but we are no where near ready to try it.

I'm not a big consumer of movies, mass-marketed music or sports, but I don't think it has anything to do with the mistake it would be to try reintroducing species without them having a habitat to inhabit, or the necessary social structure to raise them to adulthood as normally developed creatures of their species.

[The Second Stone]

30. The animal brought back would have no parents, no siblings, no mate

etc. That strikes me as really cruel. Suppose a million years from now some completely unknown species brings you back to life. Alone. Capice?

[sarisataka]

31. Undoing human mistakes would be good

unless we make a bigger mistake in undoing the first.
I would rather we work on habitat conservation and restoration to give our current animal populations room to grow and thrive.

After that, it could be worthwhile to attempt to bring back some species. The dodo would be a good experiment as it lived in an isolated ecosystem. It would be as close to a laboratory as the natural world allows and would show us the difficulties and pitfalls such a project entails.

[closeupready]

32. Existing species are on the brink.

If the question is, 'should government resources be devoted to bringing back extinct species, or saving those which haven't died out?', then the answer should be yes to the latter question.

Anyway, if private investors want to de-extinguish vanished species, I'm all for that, too.

[zipplewrath]

34. Alot we don't know

We don't really know alot about building self regulating/sustaining/balanced ecosystems. Until we do, it isn't really clear we know what the risks are of doing these things.

There was alot of work in the past in attempts at "habitat restoration". The early ones weren't all that successful. There is a tendency to believe that processes are reversable. All of them are not. You can often create a new habitat, but not go backwards and recreate an old one. And the new one needs to be very carefully planned to ensure it is actually sustainable/self regulating.

[liberal_at_heart]

35. exactly.

[LearningCurve]

37. A valid point

Thanks for taking the time to answer. In the documentary I included, the environment for the Tasmanian Tiger exists just as it did 100 years ago. The Tiger was systematically hunted to extinction by the government. In theory, the tiger should be able to be reintroduced into a very similar habitat.

[zipplewrath]

82. Just the same

We don't know enough about what a habitat/ecosystem needs or uses to maintain a balance. It is hard to believe that one could remove an entire species from an ecosystem and have no affect on that system. Something probably changed. Bringing back the Tiger 100 years later will be bringing it back to that changed environment. Maybe a bacteria no longer exists. Maybe other predators have grown in size. Maybe another species will be driven to extinction, in the modern habitat, by the presence of the Tiger. Maybe the tiger will act as a carrier for a disease that hasn't had an effective carrier for 100 years, as such the other animals that would be victims of that disease no longer have a resistance/immunity.

Knew a guy that had a fish tank. Came home one day and several of the fish were dead. His best guess was the fact that the city had cut down a tree outside of his house (on curb). That tree cast shade on the window in the room that the tank sat. The sun now shown on a tank and warmed the water up more than usual. Apparently the tank temperature had been a bit on the high side the whole time, but the fish survived. The sun caused it to cross that line. (Yeah, first this is a guess on his part, and yeah he should have never had the water that warm in the first place. He learned that lesson.)

[The2ndWheel]

40. Humanity should attempt to have even more control of the environment?

[Ohio Joe]

43. Far to many people are afraid of science

I don't understand that POV myself but... There it is.

[LearningCurve]

44. Me either

And yet, people seem to love the benefits of science. When it comes to discussing new possibilities though, people suddenly become Luddites.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. science does have its negatives. The atom bomb being one of them.

[Ohio Joe]

51. I don't think anyone denies that science has been mis-used...

I still find it a piss poor excuse for the anti-science attitude embraced by so many today.

[liberal_at_heart]

55. There's a difference in denying science all together and asking rational questions about

the negative effects that may come with it. Chemistry is another example. It has brought us many products that have made life easier and in some cases probably saved lives. But there has been a negative aspect to all the plastics and other chemicals that pollute our planet.

[LostOne4Ever]

58. I think its more a fear of the unknown

Many of the arguments against this usually fall along the lines of what if this happens or what if that happens? It assumes worst case scenarios and gives them higher probabilities than they actually have and ignores possible benefits and assumes they have nearly no chance of happening.

If we were to think this way back in at the dawn of humanity there would have been no exploration, no innovation, no science, no medicine, etc. We would still be living in caves.

Not to say we should not consider negative consequences, but that we should consider everything and proceed with this sort of science carefully and deliberately. Regardless we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by fear of the unknown.

I also think a lot of it has to due with a naturalistic fallacy assuming that if something is natural it has to be good and anything that is not perceived as natural is bad. Not to mention that natural is a nearly meaningless word. I am natural. Fruits are natural. Chemicals are natural. Ant hills are natural. Buildings are natural. Honey is natural. Technology is natural. Cloning is natural.

Anything that happens in nature is natural.

[Lee-Lee]

48. There is a time when this may be a good idea. Not now.

If we have the ability now, or in the near future, all we should do at the moment is make sure that DNA is protected so we can do it at a later time.

But now? We only have so much money and so many resources to work with. I would much rather all that effort and research went into finding new ways to feed the hungry around the world, grow crops where they can't in many places, cure diseases, and work on climate change.

You have $100,000,000 to dedicate to science. If it better spent bringing the Dodo back, or trying to find a cure or better genetic test for breast cancer?

At this point bringing extinct species back would be far more about the vanity of man and those doing it than any valid scientific purposes. And a sign of very misplaced priorities.

[LearningCurve]

56. I can think of many valid scientific purposes

For instance, as we colonize other planets, certain species may be more adaptable to conditions there than species currently alive. Others may be more desirable as well. Still others may be easier to take through the rigors of space travel. I'm also for curing breast cancer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. "as we colonize other planets" is hundreds of years in the future, at best

The questions of how many sources for clones would be needed to produce a viable gene pool, what subtle damage to DNA will have happened (older living parents have more likelihood of producing offspring with genetic diseases; what happens to DNA that was in a body that died would need to be known before any serious attempt at resurrecting a species is attempted), how any learned behaviour is taught to them, when there's no examples in the wild for us to observe and imitate, are all significant ones, that need a lot of research.

In the mean time, there are many species that we can stop from going extinct with far less effort - all the environmental work needed for them would be needed for a resurrected species too. Plus the tiny matter of climate change. We are neither at the point where we can try it with any real idea how it will turn out (which means you're doing animal experimentation), nor devote resources to it that couldn't be more productively used with living species.

[hunter]

50. Look what the poor wolves have to put up with whenever they are reintroduced to a place...

I can't say people would welcome grizzly bears back into California even though they're on our state flag.



Some people haven't been too happy with wild horses and donkeys either.

Giant Sloths, however, might be cool...

For many lost animals, their place has already been reoccupied by related species, or other species with similar requirements.

[immoderate]

52. First we should eliminate the cause of their extinction...

Which is the over population of the human species and their domesticated agricultural products.

De-extinguished animals need an environment, no?

--imm

[MelungeonWoman]

65. Thanks for posting this!

It's a great reminder for me to look up my two favorite de-extinction projects, the Quagga Project and the Judean date palm.

[LearningCurve]

73. You are welcome!

Thanks for letting ME know about the Judean date palm.

[hunter]

70. Someday someone will be thinking about de-extincting humans.

If these beings discover we were against de-extinction, they might respect our wish.

So you see, we ought to have a selfish genetic interest here...

[AverageJoe90]

113. Don't think we'll need to worry about that.....

Human extinction is so unlikely outside of a K/T impact or gamma ray burst scenario, or something of similar apocalyptic extremes, that it's amazing how many people seem to casually throw this stuff around.....and I'm not sure any aliens would be too interested in us, anyway, except to study us and maybe passively observe us in the wild.....and that'd be it, probably.

[davidn3600]

74. Jurassic Park?

Maybe you could make the case for species that have become extinct from ONLY human interference. But such things need to be incredibly controlled. I dont think we should be bringing back extinct species that went extinct either before our time or from a natural progression of evolution.

It is part of nature that some species goes into extinction. Just because an animal goes extinct doesnt mean it's because of humans.

[arcane1]

79. When we've stopped rendering other species extinct, maybe then we can think about it.

But even then, there is a lot to consider. For example, what if the resurrected species, by definition invasive, causes the extinction of other species?

I file this under "just because you can, doesn't mean you should", and I love science.

Edited to add: I don't mind it so much if it's a species that dies out recently, but I'm against it when we're talking about wooly mammoths, for example.

[AnnieBW]

80. Depends on the species

Passenger pigeon - good. Sabre-toothed tiger - bad.

[BlueJazz]

81. I've walked where Tas Tigers have walked. I'd love to see them regain their place in this world.

My feelings toward Tasmania run deep so I'm naturally biased.

[LearningCurve]

87. I've always been fascinated by the evolution of life there

And the Tasmanian Tiger was such a unique animal.

[BlueJazz]

88. Also has some cool rocks and shoreline..

[LearningCurve]

89. Stunning!

[Recursion]

84. Yes, very opposed. If you vandalize a cathedral you stop spraying paint

You don't take another spray can and try to "fix it"

[LearningCurve]

90. To take the analogy further

If you destroy a cathedral, you often rebuild it. Would you be opposed to rebuilding a cathedral that was destroyed?

[Travis_0004]

86. Bring back the T-rex!

I want to ride one.

[LostOne4Ever]

94. ^ Wins thread (nt)

[Katashi_itto]

91. I'm against it when it comes to mankind.

Go Climate Change!

Maybe the next species will do better.

[LearningCurve]

93. What about bringing the neanderthal back?

Another human species might act differently.

[Katashi_itto]

96. I could go with that. However likely we would drive them back into extinction.

[LearningCurve]

97. What if they were tasty though?

Mmmm .... neanderthal.

[Katashi_itto]

103. Hmmm...you know, that does sound pretty good....

[JCMach1]

95. Carolina parakeets apparently made cats die... there are sometimes unintended

consequences...

[XemaSab]

106. Say what?

[JCMach1]

109. apparently so

...Carolina Parakeets were probably poisonous—John James Audubon noted that cats apparently died from eating them, and they are known to have eaten the toxic seeds of cockleburs.[4]... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Parakeet

[Cerridwen]

98. Unintended consequences that we, as a species,

have proven we are incapable of imagining.

On one intellectual level I'd love to see some species re-introduced.

On another intellectual level I wonder how the now extinct species would change/not-change their immediate environment; especially during a time of climate change and heating.

[LearningCurve]

99. I'd say the same argument holds for eliminating a species

It seems the dangers exist in both directions. Yet I seem to find much stronger opinions against bring back a species, than I find for preserving an endangered one. I'm generalizing, of course.

[Cerridwen]

100. We've proven we are not intellectually or emotionally mature enough

to coexist with our own species. I think that's my basic thesis.

I don't think we have a "right;" imperative, a manifest destiny, to introduce another form of life into a world in which life is narrowly defined by those with the power to define such.

Hell, we define fetuses as more deserving of "life" than the women who bear them.

Essentially, I don't think we're ready to sit at the grown-ups table.

But, I sure would love to see some of the now extinct species in their "natural" environment. I am curious; and I am cautious.

[LearningCurve]

101. If I had the money to do this

I'd buy an island chain just for that purpose. Obviously that limits the species, but I'd love to replicate the uniqueness of Madagascar and reintroduce many of the extinct species from there.

[Cerridwen]

102. I agree it would be a fabulous undertaking.

That said, the idea that any place -on the surface- of this planet is sequestered from the rest of the planet is a bit naive.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that something.

See for reference: the scientific community on the atom bomb after the fact/reality.

[LearningCurve]

108. Agreed, these days no island is an island

However, certain islands were effectively cut off from other influences for centuries, allowing the uniqueness of life in places like Australia. While modern technology has brought the world much closer together, I do think it might be possible to effectively insulate most of a new ecosystem, at least from things like large predators.

[AverageJoe90]

111. It's a noble idea.....but it may have unintended consequences.

TBH, climate change would be about at the bottom or my list of concerns regarding this subject: what about the revived animals' impact on the local wilderness? The other animals, and the plants, and even the landscape itself? Or even us humans?

[LearningCurve]

112. For those reasons, I would advocate caution

However, impact can also be positive.