• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

They're supposed to be extinct

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,607
Location
Ngunnawal Country
bujin said:
Forget whether or not it will be possible. The real question is "should we"? A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.
Click to expand...

Cuddles said:
By that argument we shouldn't try to conserve anything. Anything that goes extinct does so for a reason. There are valid ethical arguments about cloning exticnt animals, or any animals for that matter, but the "they're supposed to be extinct" argument just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

bujin said:
I disagree.

We'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I've separated this out from the original thread because it's somewhat off-track. Bujin has said that we shouldn't consider cloning extinct creatures, because they are supposed to be extinct. Cuddles has extended the argument to include creatures that aren't extinct yet, and suggested that this means we shouldn't try to conserve endangered species, since they'e also "supposed" to be extinct - or nearly extinct, anyway.

Then bujin disagreed - but I'm not sure exactly which part you are disagreeing with - the "we shouldn't conserve anything" part or the "the 'they're supposed to be extinct' argument doesn't cut it" part.

So, bujin, with your permission I'd like to take this a bit further. Can you first clarify which part of Cuddles' post you were disagreeing with?
 
Oke lets follow Bujin's argument and demolish all hostitals...

People who are sick are supposed to die anyway.... :rolleyes:
 
A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.
Click to expand...


This isn't an ethical issue; it's "we shouldn't play God".
 
Normal Dude said:
Because you'll end up getting eaten by velociraptors.
Click to expand...

Especially if you use a GOTO

goto.png
 
The 'we are/not supposed to' argument is often heard, but never understood. My thought is 'according to who?'.

Things 'supposed' to be extinct doesn't make sense. Some things might go extinct on account of their inability to survive in one environment, but if you bring them back and they survive as a species a controlled environment, that reasoning no longer washes.

The argument then reduces to one of deciding what is natural; an endless game of semantics that don't really mean a great deal.

Athon
 
athon said:
Things 'supposed' to be extinct doesn't make sense. Some things might go extinct on account of their inability to survive in one environment, but if you bring them back and they survive as a species a controlled environment, that reasoning no longer washes.
Click to expand...

This is my problem with it. How is there any meaningful difference between cloning and extinct species and keeping it in a controlled environment and keeping an existing species in a controlled environment to stop it going extinct? In my opinion there is no difference. If conservation is acceptable then there can be nothing inherently wrong in cloning extinct species.

Of course, there are certainly ethical issues involved, especially for social animals where thousands of years worth of knowledge and culture will be missing. For example, a cloned Neanderthal would have no knowledge of their tools, language or burial customs and would rely entirely on what we taught it. It may be possible to clone a whole family group and have a reserve where they will never suspect anything, but they will be missing a huge amount compared with what Neanderthals actually had. On the other hand, would cloned Dodos even notice? If you cleared an island of rats and reintroduced Dodos, would there be any difference from how they used to live? If not, what is unethical about doing it?

The important things is, it is not the cloning itself that is ethical or unethical, it is the consequences afterwards, and these are specific to the situation. Cloning itself is not inherently good or bad. I think the most important question is "What is the point?". Cloning Dodos might not be unethical, but would we actually learn anything from it? We could almost certainly learn a lot from cloning Neanderthals, but there are big ethical problems in doing so. We certainly shouldn't go about cloning things indescriminately, but we also shouldn't reject the whole idea out of hand.
 
I think some people believe that previous extinctions are different from 'modern' ones where man has been mainly responsible for the destruction of a species, as opposed to the species innate inability to continue in a given environment.
 
I think some people believe that previous extinctions are different from 'modern' ones where man has been mainly responsible for the destruction of a species, as opposed to the species innate inability to continue in a given environment.
Click to expand...

Which is a nonsense of course - other species are as much a part of the environment as anything else - a fact that seems to get lost on people. Things have to evolve to exist alongside other organisms - this will shape them.

From a completely anantropocentric view what humans are doing to influence the extinction of other organisms is as much a natural process as climate change. The influence does, however, have a particular character which does differentiate it.

Now as to the consequences of extinction the only way one can then view it is from an anthropocentric view - since trying to view it from an ananthropocentric view would lead to a paradox! (We'd have to 'naturalise' humans then conclude whatever humans do is natural therefore we have to take an anthropocentric view to discuss what the consequences of human involvement in extinction are!)

As such we cannot say there is any 'right' or 'wrong' as to what the consequences turn out to be: we can only frame it in terms of what we want to achieve.

So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?
 
cyborg said:
Which is a nonsense of course - other species are as much a part of the environment as anything else - a fact that seems to get lost on people. Things have to evolve to exist alongside other organisms - this will shape them.
Click to expand...

I agree. :)
 
cyborg said:
As such we cannot say there is any 'right' or 'wrong' as to what the consequences turn out to be: we can only frame it in terms of what we want to achieve.

So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?
Click to expand...

I like this framing better, as it works the idea that we're looking at it from a human-centric point of view. I understand that is inherent in being human and doing the manipulation, but that doesn't mean we're right.

-A

ETA: This is, of course, what cyborg said much more eloquently. I was just saying I agree, but that didn't really come through. D'oh.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I've separated this out from the original thread because it's somewhat off-track. Bujin has said that we shouldn't consider cloning extinct creatures, because they are supposed to be extinct. Cuddles has extended the argument to include creatures that aren't extinct yet, and suggested that this means we shouldn't try to conserve endangered species, since they'e also "supposed" to be extinct - or nearly extinct, anyway.

Then bujin disagreed - but I'm not sure exactly which part you are disagreeing with - the "we shouldn't conserve anything" part or the "the 'they're supposed to be extinct' argument doesn't cut it" part.

So, bujin, with your permission I'd like to take this a bit further. Can you first clarify which part of Cuddles' post you were disagreeing with?
Click to expand...

Wow! I've hit a few nerves with my personal opinions, haven't I?

I said "we'll leave it at that" because I'm sick and tired of getting into these type of discussions.

Broes said:
Oke lets follow Bujin's argument and demolish all hostitals...

People who are sick are supposed to die anyway.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is a truly, truly stupid thing to say and a really poor misrepresentation of my opinion.

I am not going to bother discussing my views if people are going to do this.

So, I'll state my opinion again as my final input to this thread.

I don't personally think it is a good idea to clone species that have gone extinct through natural reasons. I'll briefly say why I hold this opinion, and that since I am not a biologist, I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong.

The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Bringing back extinct species (providing, of course, they haven't gone extinct through our own stupidity) would surely upset the balance of the ecosystem. By bringing back one extinct species, you could be condemning another current species to extinction as the population grows.

Do we really have the right to do that?

As I say, I'm not a biologist, and I'm fully prepared to be told that I'm wrong. Call it a "gut feeling" if you will, but this is the reason why I hold my opinion on this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom