Ultima Dragoon
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
Me too.Bugfatty 300 said:
RaptorFlu!CeGuava said:
I am loving this idea. People interested in ancient animals could fianlly be able to see anything other than fossils.
Is it right to bring back an extinct animal?
- Thread starter Che Guava
- Start date
I am loving this idea. People interested in ancient animals could fianlly be able to see anything other than fossils.
slip79
Princess
I want a Dodo.
So I can have a pet one like in the Jasper Fforde books.
So I can have a pet one like in the Jasper Fforde books.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
For the life of me, I can't think of anything that could be inherently wrong about bringing an extinct animal back to life.
Er... What?the article said:
cgannon64 said:
I don't agree with the article, but it is referring to bringing the animal back only to keep it penned up in a totally alien environment than it is suited for, all for the sake of our amusement. Even if the animals weren't "penned up", the article is referring to the possibilities of the animal not being able to successfully compete for food/resources in its new environment, and that it would be "cruel" to allow this to happen.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I think the ethical argument on zoos has long been settled...
Alvaro da Luna
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 256
Why is it cruel to bring back an extinct animal? If it's true that it will be violently treated or unable to compete (if allowed in the wild - an unlikely scenario IMHO) than I would agree that it's cruel. But I don't understand why the act of granting life to an inanimate object can ever be considered cruel. Nature granted 'us' life, is nature cruel to have distrupted the status quo that existed before us? And if nature ended the mammoth's existence, what gives nature the exclusive right to have power over life and death?
Well, it is cruel to bring a sentient creature to existence, if you know the creature will suffer a lowered (relatively) standard of life. For example, cloned animals have significant health problems compared to naturally derived animals - ergo, cloning a human being would be cruel.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
They should bring back some of those giant beavers...
Alex the Great
or maybe just semi-great
Honestly I have to encourage it.
1. Extinct creatures are really nothing more than combinations of DNA that have gone out of use. Nothing unholy, or too playing god about it.
2. It's not like we'd just let raptors loose in our cities. I'm sure we'll have some good rules for managing populations/genders/containment. T-rex in LA worries are gone.
3. You can't really stop it. Someone, somewhere will always want to see a raptor or a dodo and if we try to make it illegal, that will just ask for black market, third-world lazurogenesis (no doubt resulting in quality cuts and worse, if any, regulation.). If it's legit, at least we can, as a society, manage it.
4. It'd be friggin' awesome! I mean breed some raptors without teeth and sharp claws and you have a fun riding animal
1. Extinct creatures are really nothing more than combinations of DNA that have gone out of use. Nothing unholy, or too playing god about it.
2. It's not like we'd just let raptors loose in our cities. I'm sure we'll have some good rules for managing populations/genders/containment. T-rex in LA worries are gone.
3. You can't really stop it. Someone, somewhere will always want to see a raptor or a dodo and if we try to make it illegal, that will just ask for black market, third-world lazurogenesis (no doubt resulting in quality cuts and worse, if any, regulation.). If it's legit, at least we can, as a society, manage it.
4. It'd be friggin' awesome! I mean breed some raptors without teeth and sharp claws and you have a fun riding animal
Panda
Metal head
How about cloning some pandas?
It's kinda lonely here
It's kinda lonely here
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Devil's advocat time!
All depends on how you view life. I personally beleive that an organism, especially a highly evolved one, is more than just the sum of its DNA. Along with a genetic/morphological evolution, behaviour among organisms evolves over millions of years and is only carried on through interaction with other similar organisms and the specific environment it evolved in (i.e. 'instinct' is definitely more than just genetics). A mammoth born out of a test tube (or even bred through cross-breeding) is not going to result in a 'real' mammoth, just an organism that happens to share its DNA.
I hope no-one is worred about that! I don't see much of a threat to ourselves by ressurecting an extinct animal, just a moral and ethical dilemma.
Why stop there? I'm sure we could dig up some of JFK's old hairs or skin flakes and clone him, too! Then, we could clone Krushchev, and broadcast a bareknuckled 'battle of the clones' on HBO. Hey, if we don't do it first, somebody else might...!
Except for the fact that they were only the size of turkeys...
Don't mean to be a dick, here, I just want to raise a few ethical concerns that I might have with this process...
Alex the Great said:
All depends on how you view life. I personally beleive that an organism, especially a highly evolved one, is more than just the sum of its DNA. Along with a genetic/morphological evolution, behaviour among organisms evolves over millions of years and is only carried on through interaction with other similar organisms and the specific environment it evolved in (i.e. 'instinct' is definitely more than just genetics). A mammoth born out of a test tube (or even bred through cross-breeding) is not going to result in a 'real' mammoth, just an organism that happens to share its DNA.
I hope no-one is worred about that! I don't see much of a threat to ourselves by ressurecting an extinct animal, just a moral and ethical dilemma.
Why stop there? I'm sure we could dig up some of JFK's old hairs or skin flakes and clone him, too! Then, we could clone Krushchev, and broadcast a bareknuckled 'battle of the clones' on HBO. Hey, if we don't do it first, somebody else might...!
4. It'd be friggin' awesome! I mean breed some raptors without teeth and sharp claws and you have a fun riding animal
Except for the fact that they were only the size of turkeys...
Don't mean to be a dick, here, I just want to raise a few ethical concerns that I might have with this process...
Panda said:How about cloning some pandas?
It's kinda lonely here
Coming from a smoker! Why should we care?
Actually, Pandas are one of the groups of animals that will likely be cloned. Sadly, if it's isn't done soon enough, we'll lose a lot of genetic diversity, and will have to wait awhile before we can create our own diversity for the pandas.
velosepappe
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 141
I do not see whats immoral about cloning an extinct animal, i dont even see what's immoral about cloning in the first place. Can i explain why? Nope. I just dont see the immorality. The whole question depends on faith and believes.
From an evolutionary point of view, the sugestion that we would oppose natural selection is just bogus. We were naturally selected too, when we chose to resurrect a extinct animal, doesnt that count as a form of natural selection? And as someone stated here, natural selection is all about probabilities. There's no real driving force, only probabilities that seem to form complex outcomings.
From a theological point of view, i do not see any problem neither. If there is a god, and he 'gave' us the gift of manipulating genes, and cloning long gone animals, why would he rather not have us do it? Then you have the bible too, but somewhere i dont believe that it is written there that cloning is playing god, and even if it would, allways keep in mind that the bible is only an interpretation. Further, blindly believing what other preachers say is not wrong, because you have to make up for yourself what you believe in. Do as Christ, think for yourself and resist the ones who want to impose their ideas and dogma's. Somewhere i think his message got lost. Nowadays everybody is restricted by taboo's, very often imposed by the church that on the adverse should bring out that message of Jesus.
Anyway, i think i'm ranting too much. And maybe i'm imposing my own ideas right now. Take all this with a couple of salt, and do the same with everything.
From an evolutionary point of view, the sugestion that we would oppose natural selection is just bogus. We were naturally selected too, when we chose to resurrect a extinct animal, doesnt that count as a form of natural selection? And as someone stated here, natural selection is all about probabilities. There's no real driving force, only probabilities that seem to form complex outcomings.
From a theological point of view, i do not see any problem neither. If there is a god, and he 'gave' us the gift of manipulating genes, and cloning long gone animals, why would he rather not have us do it? Then you have the bible too, but somewhere i dont believe that it is written there that cloning is playing god, and even if it would, allways keep in mind that the bible is only an interpretation. Further, blindly believing what other preachers say is not wrong, because you have to make up for yourself what you believe in. Do as Christ, think for yourself and resist the ones who want to impose their ideas and dogma's. Somewhere i think his message got lost. Nowadays everybody is restricted by taboo's, very often imposed by the church that on the adverse should bring out that message of Jesus.
Anyway, i think i'm ranting too much. And maybe i'm imposing my own ideas right now. Take all this with a couple of salt, and do the same with everything.
Hmm. Interesting. The theological aspect doesn't concern me in the least because God gave us dominion over all the earth and all of the creatures on/in it. From that perspective, I've no issue with cloning extinct animals, as long as we don't try to clone humans.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, I don't care either. We could put them in zoos, or we could determine that 'x' animal might fit a niche we need filled.
I'm just scared silly of Mr. Smilodon and company attacking me at a rest stop on I-35 while I'm on my way to Wichita to visit family.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, I don't care either. We could put them in zoos, or we could determine that 'x' animal might fit a niche we need filled.
I'm just scared silly of Mr. Smilodon and company attacking me at a rest stop on I-35 while I'm on my way to Wichita to visit family.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I would clone raptors and release them into the Wild just to see if they could survive in today's environment.
SoCalian
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,901
That would be wicked awesome, supposing JFK didn't get sick.Che Guava said:Why stop there? I'm sure we could dig up some of JFK's old hairs or skin flakes and clone him, too! Then, we could clone Krushchev, and broadcast a bareknuckled 'battle of the clones' on HBO. Hey, if we don't do it first, somebody else might...!
Evil Tyrant
Eccentric Dictator
I don't really see any moral issue with cloning an extinct animal, but why would anyone want to? It strikes me as an utter waste of time and money. These animals will be of little use to our society beyond a couple of strange novelties.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Evil Tyrant said:
Maybe I want to know what a Wooly Mammoth tastes like.
Similar threads
