Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Render

The ethics of resurrecting extinct species

Is it ethical?    29 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it ethical?

    • Yes
      19
    • No
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

70 posts in this topic

I can see how it would be amazing to see these creatures brought back to life, but there are some things that shouldn't be messed with. These beings became extinct for a reason, so bringing them back would be a perversity to nature. We cannot even save those animals going extinct-or ourselves- so why bring another problem into the picture?

Jurassic Park was a fictional movie, but doing these things will end the same, if not worse.

Yes, I would love to see these amazing animals alive, but I wouldn't be a part of this "voodoo" to bring beings gone back to life. This planet isn't meant for them anymore and they would just become a tourism lure to make money.

Ethical? No, this is not ethical. Not to the functioning mind that knows what part the animals played in their past, that they're not here for a reason.

It's not ethical for many reasons.. Not ethical because these "replicas" will be entrapped to be used as sight-seeing and proof that scientists will tamper with things they shouldn't.

What if they escape? Of course, the animal or other such creature will be put down as a wild beast(much to the apologies of the wild scientists that bred them).

This is perversion for fame.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wanna see dinosaurs brought back to life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On topic im split 50/50 if the animals could be given a natural environment to live and a guarantee they could not become an invasive species to the current environment then i would not have a problem with it.Otherwise it is pointless and wreckless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ethics are irrelevant in this issue.

Its not a matter of wether we like it or not, it is happening and it is a scientific advancement, no one is going to give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the more I think about this subject the more I think NO it is neither ethical nor safe. Man decides to play god and brings something back, an example being a dodo ..but that specific DNA donating creature died out due to a disease oh lets say H29 N14 ( just pulling numbers and letters out of the air here people! ) that had embedded itself in the DNA of the extinct creature we are bringing back, we can't ID it so don't know it's there and we are not immune to it because it was long gone before we ever got on this planet....... and because we don't know better so we bring back the disease as well....... well you get the picture..... we may be intelligent but we are not gods. we are humans and every human makes a mistake at some point in his, her or It's life. we should not monkey with stuff like this

edited for spelling

Edited by mysticwerewolf
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should absolutely attempt to bring back any animal they want. I would love to see it. It's no more "playing God" than giving a person CPR to revive them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I just took my son to see the rerelease of Jurassic Park, I would say beware the law of unintended consequences. We silly humans cannot fully control the world around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They went extinct of some reason. I can;t see bring back a Mammoth or a T rex or any thing that is long gone

Edited by wolfknight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"i think that it would be a great idea, people would be able to go to zoos and see animals for how they really were, we all get shown images of what people said they looked like but no one knows for sure."

And that is exactly why it wouldn't be a good thing. To be brought back and gawked at for your entire life behind bars as a prisoner, never to know freedom. I hate zoos.

Sorry, animals in a prison are not how they really were or are. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Muslim cultures still allow the male to rape, torture, and kill his daughters, and wife. They are considered his possessions.

No we are not ready for cloning and bringing back the extinct is not working with evolution. That's just my thoughts. If this came to fruition it could/would be very evil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They went extinct of some reason. I can;t see bring back a Mammoth or a T rex or any thing that is long gone

I think if they were hunted to extinction or that humans had a hand in the decline in their numbers, we should do something to bring them back as long as they can still assimilate into nature without disrupting another species' food supply/habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they were hunted to extinction or that humans had a hand in the decline in their numbers, we should do something to bring them back as long as they can still assimilate into nature without disrupting another species' food supply/habitat.

As i said, look at what we have done to Wolves. Wolves were and always have been part of the ecological system. People are to stupid to realize this, and decided re-introducing wolves was wrong. Even though we were the ones that killed them off in the first place. The food chain had its balance, and still does with wolves, a natural one. Humans are to selfish to play with life.

Let nature take care of itself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they were hunted to extinction or that humans had a hand in the decline in their numbers, we should do something to bring them back as long as they can still assimilate into nature without disrupting another species' food supply/habitat.

I don't feel that should factor into it at all. Do you think that so that somehow humans would have redeemed themselves a little? Humans killed of species, natural disasters killed off species and creatures have killed off species. It's funny that people will say nature killed off a species. Humans are part of nature just like an asteroid is.

na·ture

/ˈneɪthinsp.pngtʃər/ Show Spelled [ney-cher]

the universe, with all its phenomena.

I say - Get rolling and let's get these species back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's irresponsible, but not that these corporate scientists actually care about anyone but their own highly inflated egos and the prestige that goes with it. I imagine most scientists would do anything just to win a Noble Peace Prize, regardless of the consequences or damage they create. It's absolutely idiotic bringing back something like a Woolly mammoth or Saber Tooth Tiger just to stick it in a zoo, which is immoral and unethical for various reasons and releasing them into the wild is also equally irresponsible, as they would probably devour everything in site and destroy the Eco system that other animals rely and depend on. They've had their time, mother nature got rid of them for a reason and has moved on. Human beings simply don't have the right to mess around with something we don't fully understand. If anything, it's our duty to protect and respect nature as it is today.

Edited by AI Construct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irresponsible, but not that these corporate scientists actually care about anyone but their own highly inflated egos and the prestige that goes with it. I imagine most scientists would do anything just to win a Noble Peace Prize, regardless of the consequences or damage they create. It's absolutely idiotic bringing back something like a Woolly mammoth or Saber Tooth Tiger just to stick it in a zoo, which is immoral and unethical for various reasons and releasing them into the wild is also equally irresponsible, as they would probably devour everything in site and destroy the Eco system that other animals rely and depend on. They've had their time, mother nature got rid of them for a reason and has moved on. Human beings simply don't have the right to mess around with something we don't fully understand. If anything, it's our duty to protect and respect nature as it is today.

I disagree. The scientists are not doing anything wrong. This would be an incredibly exciting field to be a part of right now. Bringing back an extict animal! I love it!

Mother nature isn't a real person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is nothing wrong to bring back extinct species or caveman or etc but they are living so yes they have rights and freedoms and etc like regular people and animals today!!!one thing that concerns though is are they truly alive meaning do they have a "soul" or are they just empty vehicles or shells???but other than that its okay to bring them back to life.as long as science don't do nothing bad and evil on them or unethical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the more I think about this subject the more I think NO it is neither ethical nor safe. Man decides to play god and brings something back, an example being a dodo ..but that specific DNA donating creature died out due to a disease oh lets say H29 N14 ( just pulling numbers and letters out of the air here people! ) that had embedded itself in the DNA of the extinct creature we are bringing back, we can't ID it so don't know it's there and we are not immune to it because it was long gone before we ever got on this planet....... and because we don't know better so we bring back the disease as well....... well you get the picture..... we may be intelligent but we are not gods. we are humans and every human makes a mistake at some point in his, her or It's life. we should not monkey with stuff like this

edited for spelling

I don't think it works like that.... that a virus would be re-incarnated with the animal.

But, that does bring up a good point that every single one of us has symbiotic critters in us. That help us digest and process food into our bodies. Bringing back a complex animal like a dodo, or a saber-toothed cat, might just result in their dying quickly from not having the symbiotic critters that they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is nothing wrong to bring back extinct species or caveman or etc but they are living so yes they have rights and freedoms and etc like regular people and animals today!!!one thing that concerns though is are they truly alive meaning do they have a "soul" or are they just empty vehicles or shells???but other than that its okay to bring them back to life.as long as science don't do nothing bad and evil on them or unethical

Animals have few rights. How many rights does a cow have? These animals would be the Property of the corporation that clones them. Property can be tortured to death if they want, or experimented on, or just killed and thrown into the dump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irresponsible, but not that these corporate scientists actually care about anyone but their own highly inflated egos and the prestige that goes with it. I imagine most scientists would do anything just to win a Noble Peace Prize, regardless of the consequences or damage they create. It's absolutely idiotic bringing back something like a Woolly mammoth or Saber Tooth Tiger just to stick it in a zoo, which is immoral and unethical for various reasons and releasing them into the wild is also equally irresponsible, as they would probably devour everything in site and destroy the Eco system that other animals rely and depend on. They've had their time, mother nature got rid of them for a reason and has moved on. Human beings simply don't have the right to mess around with something we don't fully understand. If anything, it's our duty to protect and respect nature as it is today.

Mother nature is not the Master of Mankind. We create our own Nature everywhere we go. We make buildings and cities and alter the local terrain, plants, watershed, atmosphere and even the temperature of where we live. We build and build and build, and consider everything our property. This would include extinct cloned animals. They would be property and never given back to nature.

I think using a cloned animal to show their physiology alone would be a useful addition to science.

Those who claim Nature will take a cloned animal and Rise UP and lay low the Technological Elite.... have been watching to many cheap horror flicks. I don't know how many sheep, pigs and mice have been cloned, but there has yet to be an accident where the sheep were accidentally made carnivorous and they ate a whole village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We create our own Nature everywhere we go.

So true, we also destroy it.

We also destroy it, bring it back, and destroy it again.

We are a cancer, a plague, a symbiotic creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang! Just realized this was a Poll Thread. Voted YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think the word Sakari was looking for was, to quote Mr. Smith, "a Virus". ( I could be wrong and if so my apologies to Sakari )

most viruses and diseases infect the host at a sub cellular level ,adapting and using that cells reproductive/regenerative abilities to create more virus like itself ( if I correctly understand what little I know on the subject) restore the wrong cell's DNA, one that has been virus Corrupted, and you could bring back a disease just as easily as the host creature.

and a couple further thoughts, if life does require a soul or connection to some unknown form of energy ( this from an atheist mind you) would we be god enough to be able to recreate that energy or would we just be creating / cloning dead meat , or soulless monsters or something entirely different ( perhaps a monty python sketch.... "but sir it has fangs" )

Edited by mysticwerewolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the word Sakari was looking for was, to quote Mr. Smith, "a Virus". ( I could be wrong and if so my apologies to Sakari )

most viruses and diseases infect the host at a sub cellular level ,adapting and using that cells reproductive/regenerative abilities to create more virus like itself ( if I correctly understand what little I know on the subject) restore the wrong cell's DNA, one that has been virus Corrupted, and you could bring back a disease just as easily as the host creature.

and a couple further thoughts, if life does require a soul or connection to some unknown form of energy ( this from an atheist mind you) would we be god enough to be able to recreate that energy or would we just be creating / cloning dead meat , or soulless monsters or something entirely different ( perhaps a monty python sketch.... "but sir it has fangs" )

Virus works for me.......I prefer cancer, but for this topic, virus.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted a big, fat YES! Yes, bring back extinct animals, anyone of them. What's the big deal? And who cares why the animal became extinct...who's to say "nature" is correct anyway?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.