+DieChecker Posted April 11, 2013 #51 Share Posted April 11, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekx Posted April 11, 2013 #52 Share Posted April 11, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godofcats Posted April 11, 2013 #53 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I think Jeff Gildblum's dialogue in Jurassic Park said it all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spayneuter Posted April 12, 2013 #54 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Doesn't matter. Someone will do it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted April 12, 2013 #55 Share Posted April 12, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted April 12, 2013 #56 Share Posted April 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted April 13, 2013 #57 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calle Posted April 13, 2013 #58 Share Posted April 13, 2013 if humans extinct the creature, then we should be abligated to bring their spicies back as we extincted it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted April 13, 2013 #59 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted April 13, 2013 #60 Share Posted April 13, 2013 (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 April 13, 2013 by Hawkin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted April 13, 2013 #61 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted April 13, 2013 #62 Share Posted April 13, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 14, 2013 #63 Share Posted April 14, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted April 14, 2013 #64 Share Posted April 14, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 14, 2013 #65 Share Posted April 14, 2013 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted April 16, 2013 #66 Share Posted April 16, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markdohle Posted April 19, 2013 #67 Share Posted April 19, 2013 No matter if it is moral to bring back extinct spieces or not... we will do it if we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calle Posted April 20, 2013 #68 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (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 April 20, 2013 by Zerocoder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 22, 2013 #69 Share Posted April 22, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now