BlackMalachite

So, what are your views on de-extinction? For those who don't know, here's a brief definition:

De-extinction, or resurrection biology, or species revivalism is the process of creating an organism, which is either a member of, or resembles an extinct species, or breeding population of such organisms. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although selective breeding has also been proposed. (Source: Wikipedia)

Personally, I think it's the next step in our species unlocking understanding, and working towards mastering the genetic code of our world. I don't see any moral issues with bringing an extinct animal back (considering the ones that we're able to resurrect right now such as the Mammoth we're at the very least partially responsible for their extinction in the first place). They'd be well taken care of due to the sheer amount of money via grants that would be poured into this project once the mainstream caught on, and it would allow us to understand so much more about evolution, the processes of animals in the past, and much, much more.

Personally, I think we should even go a step farther and bring back the Neanderthal, I understand that's an entirely different debate due to being a human ancestor, but in terms of understanding our own genes, and how genes work in humans overall (which could bridge into many, many different things), I think that we should pursue these areas of research.

The Batlord

Whether or not we killed it is irrelevant, unless you have some wishy washy notion of karma or whatever. Just because something went extinct due to non-human environmental factors doesn't mean that A.) it should stay dead just cause, or that B.) it couldn't thrive under a different environment (which would make its original extinction a moot point).

The issue is more along the lines of the meat industry: is it okay to breed organisms specifically for our own purposes, regardless of whether or not it benefits or harms that organism?

*shrug*

If we're already breeding chickens by the millions and treating them like ass then does it make sense to create a double standard when playing god? Not a true answer to the question, but **** it.

__________________

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.

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.

Frownland

The earth is already way too overpopulated, we don't need more oxygen-hogging, resource-competing mother****ers up in this planet.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

The Batlord

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.)

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.

__________________

BlackMalachite

Studies into extinct animals could yield research about more sustainable genetic options which in turn could be utilized in GMOs which everyone on the planet consumes.

Well obviously a GMO de-extinct animal isn't going to be exactly the same as its counterpart (unless they do the method Japan is using where they literally splice the embyro's DNA to unlock the hidden genes of its ancestor using previous blood and modern techniques), I wouldn't exactly call it a red herring since the resulting creature is likely 95 - 99% similar (they've already resurrected an extinct animal, the Pyrenean Ibex, but it died seven minutes after birth due to lung complications)

Frownland

I say we just try to aim for 100% earth exctinction and then only us humans will have the world.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

BlackMalachite

Animals are so lovely though, and certain ones are delicious.

Frownland

They can be but when I found out that they're trying to get all of my oxygen and food I was like hell no.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

BlackMalachite

Dem damn animals coming to our country n' taking our air.