Last Active: Apr 13, 2015
Threads: 62
Posts: 2,121
Reputation:
5
The science behind cloning endangered animals or bringing back already-extinct species is as interesting as it is controversial. National Geographic addresses this in their April issue, featuring a video where experts express their divergent opinions on the subject. But, NatGeo also goes a step beyond the traditional debate to discuss a concept with more widespread implications: de-extinction.
In a broad sense, de-extinction refers to a more complete extinction reversal. So instead of just bringing back, say, one wooly mammoth, scientists would try to bring back a whole population. As one video commentator put it, "let it restore the balance in that ecosystem."
Good idea? Bad idea?
[Personally, I think it's a bad idea--there are far too many variables involved to be able to accurately predict the consequences of, effectively, introducing new species to new environments. But I've no doubt at all that it will be tried sooner or later.]
Last Active: Nov 19, 2024
Threads: 615
Posts: 7,941
Reputation:
86
The good side and the bad always have to do with science.
To let a species go extinct is a crime against science, but is playing God.
i think that the better question is whether or not we need to bring extinct species back to life.
i don't see any point in bringing extinct species back to life unless there is an actual gain to be made in terms of exploitation... like consumer goods and services or scientific exploitation. recreating extinct forms of oysters and clams for the purpose of water purification is kind of cool beneficial, recreating extinct forms of dinosaurs or whales for the purposes of consumption seem cooler.
stressing the environment with invasive species because it can't adapt quickly enough due to human intervention seems like a bad idea... but nature adapts. back in colonial times, sailors use to deposit rabbits and goats onto uninhabited islands as a living food cache just in case other sailors one day became stranded there. these invasive species eventually offset the natural balance of the islands, caused the extinction of the natural wildlife, ate all the vegetation available and then started dying off themselves due to starvation. that starvation is what kept populations in check as the goats, rabbits and islands reached a state of equilibrium... until we started visiting these islands and tried to kill off the goats and rabbits so we could reintroduce native species and then found out that the types of goats and rabbits present on those islands were believed to have been long extinct themselves and well, it's a cluster fuck.
so, i don't think we need to bring animals back to life unless there is a reasonable financial or scientific gain. if the argument turns towards issues like bringing the dodo back to life without a valid reason, i'd have to be in opposition of that since historical reference indicates that the dodo were not very tasty nor were they smart or otherwise useful for anything.
Last Active: May 09, 2014
Threads: 11
Posts: 260
Reputation:
11
Shouldn't we worry about the human species first?
(Mar 15, 2014, 04:33 am)tuffgong Wrote: Shouldn't we worry about the human species first?
politicians all around the world have already built bunkers for themselves to ensure that the "human" race will survive... despite the limitations of their particular genetic shortcomings.
addressing issues such as the extinction of a wide range of flora and fauna is in everyone's best interest for several reasons.
Last Active: Jul 15, 2017
Threads: 8
Posts: 1,240
Reputation:
27
bring back extinct species???!!!
who?!!!
the communist?!
hell no!
Last Active: Dec 02, 2014
Threads: 12
Posts: 240
Reputation:
8
Mar 15, 2014, 10:42 am
(This post was last modified: Mar 15, 2014, 10:45 am by ViperScale. Edited 1 time in total.)
(Mar 15, 2014, 07:43 am)stormium Wrote: (Mar 15, 2014, 04:33 am)tuffgong Wrote: Shouldn't we worry about the human species first?
politicians all around the world have already built bunkers for themselves to ensure that the "human" race will survive... despite the limitations of their particular genetic shortcomings.
addressing issues such as the extinction of a wide range of flora and fauna is in everyone's best interest for several reasons.
Those bunkers guarantee if something happens that the human race will die off. Remember the politicians are the people who are clueless on how the world works. Some redneck living in a snack would be more likely to survive after a nuclear holocaust then politicianers.
Last Active: Oct 13, 2017
Threads: 9
Posts: 141
Reputation:
22
It seems pointless and a waste of money..
Last Active: Sep 29, 2024
Threads: 26
Posts: 324
Reputation:
27
Dinosaurs are extinct too. Wanna bring them back? I don't think so.
Those motherfuckers are extinct for a reason. Out with the old, in with the new.
Last Active: Nov 19, 2024
Threads: 615
Posts: 7,941
Reputation:
86
I agree with Wildcard.
I, for one, would not like to be stepped on by a T-Rex.
But by your logic, we too will be extinct; out with the old and in with the new.
|
