It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cloning extinct species, good or bad?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:22 AM
I'm all for it. But has no one seen the "Jurassic Park Movies?"

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by Djdoubt03

ya, they eat the people

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:40 AM
Not a bad idea,maybe we can bring back the big bad dinosaurs to eat people thus depopulating the planet so other little animals and such can have a go whaddya think?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by BloodRedSky

regarding the Tasmanian Tiger;

Its extinction is popularly attributed to these relentless efforts by farmers and bounty hunters.[25] However, it is likely that multiple factors led to its decline and eventual extinction, including competition with wild dogs (introduced by settlers),[49] erosion of habitat, the concurrent extinction of prey species, and a distemper-like disease that also affected many captive specimens at the time.[20][50]

Trust me on this one... If the other multiple factors had not come into play, the extinction would still have occurred due to the relentless hunting of these animals. Assuming there are indeed extinct that is.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by Dragon33

They went extinct on the Australian mainland 2000 years prior. I am guessing that while the Aborigines did hunt them, they were not carrying out a deliberate campaign to eradicate them.

Not saying that the hunting didnt help them along, but we have been trying to eradicate rats and mice and ants for years. Hows that working for us?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by BloodRedSky

Thought provoking!

All knowledge is good, it is what we do with that knowledge which makes a difference.

Certainly cloning extinct species would be knowledge gathering. Those cloned would surely be under controlled scrutiny but would likely not survive in the wild as they would not have any immunity to modern diseases stored in their DNA. Perhaps in this quest, we could discover a means to transfer stored genetic immunities from one species to another.

I’d participate.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:42 AM
The wooly mammoth should have been cloned years ago, specimens in Siberia are still trimmed for their meat as foodstuff by some of the natives. Plenty of viable DNA. With the costs of fuels, just the potential use by loggers in the north woods I believe would make them quite competetive.

Ice Road Mammoth Drivers??????

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ibgrimme]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ibgrimme]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:47 AM
i personaly am 'on the fence' so to speak in this matter. if we first put cloning to creatures which are highly endangered, such as the white lion (around 30 left), some primates etc. to bring them back from the brink of extinction then i will be satisfied.

i dont think we should clone anything extinct yet, as yes we would have to recreate a perfect habitat, therefore should focus soley on extinct plants for the time being. when we are ready we should try something recent, small and harmless, such as the dodo. as we get better maybe move on to carnivores such as the tasmanian tiger.

i dont think we will be able to clone dinosaurs for another 20 or so years, and be capable of keeping them healthy, safe from humans (and vice versa) for double that time. even then we should stick to small herbivors, omnivors at most, non bigger then 3ft high/5ft long whatever.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:52 AM
They go extinct for a reason,everyday species are becoming extinct...I would endorse cloning for scientific testing etc...but as for releasing them into the wild

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:09 AM
Re-creating lost species could be a good idea. We should be careful and take precautions so you know, we don't have an incident like Jurassic Park

We ought to respect nature now that humanity has grown a little, and at the very least perhaps bring back the species which we took part in annihilating

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:31 AM
Why do they have to be put back into the ecosystem? Recreating these things wont be exactly cheap. Why spend all that money and then turn the thing loose so it can get eaten by something bigger, or drown, or fall off a ledge?

They would be curiosities and designer zoo pets. What zoo wouldnt want a live wooly mammoth exhibit? You create them for that enviroment. You control the population.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:53 AM
man....... if these cloning animals go wild and crazy one day, I wouldn't be surprised.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:10 PM
Cloning something back into existance is not a smart idea. First of all, it will be painful to the animals. Just like the case with Dolly the sheep, if you fully clone something, you weaken the animals ability to reproduce its own dna for cells and tissues. Their lives will be shortened considerably.

Secondly, i don't think we have the right to do this. There is really no point in doing it. Why should we risk destroying other species of animals because one died off?

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:09 PM
I know some may disagree, but i think the entire planet is balanced as perfectly as it can be whilst swarming with Billions of Human beings.

In fact ... if Evolution exists then us re-introducing a species into the eco-system could be a very bad idea and give us more than we bargained for.

They Dont call it survival of the fittest for nothing.

[edit on 13/8/08 by Quantum_Squirrel]

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 03:02 PM
Some species shouldn't need to come back because they can't exist in our environment naturally. But, I haven't a huge problem with learning genetics enough to do it along with a limited few living examples.

Herbivores is more acceptable than carnivores, but, without the right combinations of bacteria flora and foods that would have been provided by the mother, would they survive? The tiger and the mammoth would probably survive by a present day surrogate mother...reptiles might not.

This genetic evolution allows us to progress and evolve and possibly succeed at immortality and space flight in order for our own species to survive. Would this move us into a type one stage? Some species that had died off might have also had some contagious disease. Ressurecting them might also with this disease. My guess would be that it still exists somehwere on the planet in some form and possibly in stasis such as frozen in a glacier. Reminds me of an X-files episode and movie.

If we could find proof of life after death; immortality and evolution should follow. Imagine if a crystalized form of DNA could be transferred into living tissue again.

I still like the line in Jurassic park; "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:04 PM
I also read in the swedish Magazine "Illustrerad Vetenskap" (Illustrated Science) about the cloning of Woolly Mammoths, but there wasn't any info on progress. So would really like to find out more.

Can't wait to see what happens.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by BloodRedSky

I think it is a great idea to clone extinct species. Just think of all the new meat we carnivores could dine on:

1. brontosaurus burgers, steaks, ribs
2. T-Rex burgers burgers, steaks, ribs
3. fried pteradactyl legs, breast
4. mammoth burgers, steaks, ribs

The list is literally endless. And the possibility for BIG GAME hunters is just astounding!!!!!!

There wouldn't be any use or need for those ridiculous "endangered species" laws as we could just start cloning them and let them reproduce in the wild as normal; a veritable hunters paradise.

And then there's the zoos..... it would be great to have dinosaurs and other extinct critters in zoos as well.

There are so many positive aspects to this.... just think one brontosaurus or brachiasaur could feed an entire poverty stricken town, with a shortage of food, for at least 3 to 4 weeks!!!!! NO MORE STARVING CHILDREN ON THE AFRICAN CONTINENT!!!!!

I hope they start doing it soon.... I want to bring down a T-Rex with my .50 cal.


posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Awarenessiskey
man....... if these cloning animals go wild and crazy one day, I wouldn't be surprised.

Like I said before "Jurassic Park"

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:24 PM
Depends on the animal I guess, cloning the dinosaurs would be a very bad idea.

If dinosaurs were still with us to this day we won't be anywhere near our peak of civilization and technology, probably would still be living in caves.

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:32 PM
I believe in Scientific America, they had an article about bring back the Ice Age habitat back to North America. Well it wasn't about cloning, but about introducing animals that were related to these ice Age beasts. When an animal goes extict, it couldn't survive the changing condictions. Depending on what our future generations decide what to do with the habitats around the world, we may or may not see extict animals.
Also what is to be cloned? Should we just clone what we brought to extiction, or just bring back any creature that was?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in