Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMalachite
I believe it's a completely relevant point, considering a major argument by a lot of people against de-extinction is "well nature made it die for a reason." We're not nature, we've evolved to a point where we control ecosystems instead of participating in them.
|
That's some more wishy washy bull****. Unless you're using "nature" as a euphemism for God then it's just a nonsense poetical term referring to a ball of rock with a bunch of stuff on it. Nature has no reason.
A random sub-species of fiddler crab might go extinct simply because it was not entirely "maximised" to live on the mile of coastline that it evolved on, even though given the chance it could have been strong enough to have become an invasive species on 90% of the world's other coastlines.
And if we're just talking about recreating extinct species in laboratory conditions then the point becomes entirely moot (though if we're talking about reintroducing extinct species into environments which may very well have evolved to exist without them then the common sense alarm bells need to start sounding.)
Quote:
|
Frankly it's because the animal being brought back from the dead is of more scientific importance than the average farm chicken. While I think it's disgusting how a lot of farm animals are treated (some of the footage I've seen is absolutely disgusting), it still doesn't change the fact that the two in terms of stature and population are fundamentally different and not subject to that double standard.
|
That sounds like it has less to do with extinct species and more to do with genetic research in general, making extinct species a red herring. If the issue is what could be done with the research from a velociraptor or a dodo bird that could lead to some big heavy SyFy Channel b-movie ****, then you're not really talking about velociraptors or dodo birds in the first place.