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 don't think they would bring back a virus, because a virus looks totally different from a mammal or bird's DNA. And to clone an animal, they would take a single cell and put that reconstructed DNA in there. They are not directly reanimating dead animal cells, like a Frankenstein monster. They are impregnating a cell with a single copy of DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On topic I think it wouldn't be convenient to bring them back simply because one of the best reasons would be the environment. Different time lapses have their different own changes between times and these changes present themselves on different ways on the environment itslef and on the species. As we know, natural characteristics change in orden for survival for the species so it would be pointless to create an unfree observational environment as a natural one too. Of course I can think of the possibility to recreate and adaptable environment but it would still be observational this way too though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff Gildblum's dialogue in Jurassic Park said it all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. Someone will do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff Gildblum's dialogue in Jurassic Park said it all.

“God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.”

Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff Gildblum's dialogue in Jurassic Park said it all.

While a little thought provoking, I don't think it is as important as it was in the movie.

God creates dodo's, God kills dodo's, God creates man, man brings back dodo's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If man had a hand in killing off a species then man should bring it back. It's not the same where dinos became extinct by nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if humans extinct the creature, then we should be abligated to bring their spicies back as we extincted it

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If man had a hand in killing off a species then man should bring it back. It's not the same where dinos became extinct by nature.

Who is this nature?

Humans are nature as much as an asteroid is nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Who is this nature?

Humans are nature as much as an asteroid is nature.

Unlike an asteroid, humans have the ability to think.

It's just unfortunate that a lot of them don't.

Edited by Hawkin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike an asteroid, humans have the ability to think.

It's just unfortunate that a lot of them don't.

I agree with that. But it really shouldn't be a factor in bring an animal back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that. But it really shouldn't be a factor in bring an animal back.

I will agree that we are a part of nature since we share this planet with other species.

I just feel that since we have the intellect to control our destiny and the destiny of other

species, we should repair what we broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If man had a hand in killing off a species then man should bring it back. It's not the same where dinos became extinct by nature.
if humans extinct the creature, then we should be abligated to bring their spicies back as we extincted it

What if the species that went extint only lived in one lake, or in one small 1 acre field, and fed off only one kind of plant or flower? Are we going to revive a species that was already 99% extinct? What if the plant or the lake that they depended on no longer exists?

That is why I think bring back a species into the world is only a good idea if there is somewhere for them to live and thrive. Otherwise your good intentions are just creating a second extinction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the species that went extint only lived in one lake, or in one small 1 acre field, and fed off only one kind of plant or flower? Are we going to revive a species that was already 99% extinct? What if the plant or the lake that they depended on no longer exists?

That is why I think bring back a species into the world is only a good idea if there is somewhere for them to live and thrive. Otherwise your good intentions are just creating a second extinction.

When I was born, the Earth's population was half of what it is now. I have a feeling that nature will take care of that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was born, the Earth's population was half of what it is now. I have a feeling that nature will take care of that.

Maybe... Maybe not. Mother Nature is just another god entity that is claimed to have power, but I'd bet she can fade away just as Odin, Jupiter and Zeus have passed away.

When humans Create their own environments, we step outside of nature.

That is not to say that some plague might not wipe out large numbers of humans, but chiefly what wipes out humans is Other Humans!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly understand the arguement that we should only bring back animals who could survive and be prosperous in the wild. Dodo's, Thylacine, passenger pigeon and different deer species would make sense.

But I really want both a mastodon and a mammoth to be revived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter if it is moral to bring back extinct spieces or not... we will do it if we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No it isn't ethical. AKA we'll do it any way until it screws up, then continue to do it.

Perhaps if we put a little more effort into looking after the wildlife and animals we already have in the first place then nothing else would be driven to extinction.

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No it isn't ethical. AKA we'll do it any way until it screws up, then continue to do it.

Perhaps if we put a little more effort into looking after the wildlife and animals we already have in the first place then nothing else would be driven to extinction.

most people in the world does not care about the consequenses of their actions, i did not either but now i think twice before i do something

No matter if it is moral to bring back extinct spieces or not... we will do it if we can.

Agreed, their called animals for a reason and the reason is their not sentient beings that can think and act, they only show primitive brain functions

and if we choose to bring back, i don't think we would let them go to the wild just yet.

i was thinking of Controlled enviroment so we could determine if their ready to be released or not.

Edited by Zerocoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't ethical. AKA we'll do it any way until it screws up, then continue to do it.

Perhaps if we put a little more effort into looking after the wildlife and animals we already have in the first place then nothing else would be driven to extinction.

Compared to most of the world, the US is Mega-Uber-Green. India (overpopulation, disease, industry), China (Farming Nitrites, Industial pollutions), Brazil (Deforestation), Central Africa (burning anything they can find, eating anything they can find, overgrazing, desertification).... are all much worse then the US ecologically. There is more woodlands in the US then there was when the English began colonizing 300+ years ago.

If there are problems, then sure, science will need to work on them. But the only thing that is unethical in cloning animals is perhaps abusing them for sport. If it is for food, or scientific reasons, or just to return them to nature... those are not unethical.

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.