Ready to Participate?
Ready to Participate?
Get Started!
Log In

with ginetics improoving day by day would you like to see it used to bring animals back from extinction?

Supplement from 05/14/2007 11:53pm:
Genetics sorry lol

asked in wildlife, science, technology

hdtg answers:

this is a bit of a double edged sword, genetic engineering is an imperfect branch of science, much is not yet known, and whenever humanity interferes with nature we seem to cause as many (if not more ) problems than we solve.
But having said that we are responsible for the extinction of so many species and I feel if it were possible to bring them back without having further detrimental impact on our planet, then I think we are morally bound to do so :-)

/ reply

gentoo answers:

If you don't approve of genetic engineering, then the answer will of course be 'no'.
If you DO believe in using genetic engineering then I think the answer will still be 'no' since there are so many more important beneficial uses for genetic engineering. Furthermore, bringing back extinct organisms would upset the balance of existing ecosystems. Many countries already go to great lengths to prevent exotics being brought in to their countries (especially island ecosystems) and others spend fortunes trying to eradicate such creatures that have already been brought in (e.g. rabbits in Australia). There are problems already trying to re-establish animals in areas where they once used to exist (eg wolves, bears and beavers). There would be even more opposition to extinct animals being revived and introduced anywhere.

In summary then, if genetic engineering is to be used at all, use it for beneficial purposes. I mean beneficial to the environment, not just to mankind.

/ reply

Carina480 answers:

Since the thylacine became extinct by accident not that long ago I would not be against resurrecting it - and it would not be hunted again as it would be protected. Otherwise I agree with doubts raised by 'gentoo'. It is an ethical debate.

/ reply

Reckless19 answers:

If it was possible, then yes. If it could be anything, it would have to be Dinosaurs.
Possibly the most talked about creature in the World, after Michael Jackson of course, yet they died out some 50 millions years ago. It would be amazing to see what they were really like.

/ reply

P-Kasso answers:

I can see why people might want to bring back cuddly or interesting creatures such as dodos, bisons, dinosaurs etc - but (or rather, a very large BUT) there will always be some guy in a white coat lurking in a laboratory somewhere who will decide to resurrect the Black Plague virus.

That's where the crux of the ethics debate lies.

The extinctions of animals over time have produced the environment as we know it today. The loss of one mammal affects the eating habits and proliferation of others that preyed on it or were hunted by it. We tamper with that balance at our peril.

I am reminded of a Ray Bradbury short story where people can travel back in time to view lost nature from the pre-historic period, a kind of Time Safari.

They are told to stay on special walkways and do nothing to interfere or change things. One man steps off the walkway and crushes a solitary butterfly.

When they return to the present the woman in the travel agency looks familiar but is not quite the same, the scenes on the streets are familiar but not quite the same...

I forget the name of the story but the message is very clear.

So, I say no to resurrecting dead animals.

/ reply

Alba726 answers:

There aren't any from the past that I'd resurrect, but there are many endangered animals that I'd want to save, e.g. pandas and tigers. But you've got the food chain problem. If you have too much of one animal in a food chain, it could become out of balance and another creature could become extinct. If they're carnivores, they have to find another source of food.

/ reply


No Comments