Cloning extinct species, good or bad?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
They have been cloning mouflon, an endangered European sheep, a few years back in 2001, Italy.
Also I participated in a project for reproduction of hard corals in captivity: sexual and non sexual methods are used in public aquariums these days and are very succesfull.

Cloning can be a alternative for invitro fertalisation. A specialy when the genepool of curtain species are very small.
I think it make sense as long the original habitat can be garanteed so the animals can be introduced back in the wild en protected.




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
In my opinion, We should not clone animals that are extinct. When you start introducing animals back into the population you upset the eco system. We will always have evolving animals that will replace extinct ones so there is no need to bring them back. If an animal went extinct because of man what makes you think it will survive now if it is introduced back into the world. Work on helping the animals we have now and dont waist time and money playing god.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
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!!!!!!


Bet they all taste like chicken, big juicy >slurp< chickens!



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I have to agree with russ..

if they're extinct.. so be it. Whether you personally see it as unnatural or not, it happened. If you clone an extinct species, why not go ahead and create a whole new one? It's the same role you're assuming as a creator.

I feel that as a human species we aren't in tune enough to know what will happen no matter how well we scheme. I'm not against cloning, just of the belief that until we can get a handle on what we already have among us, adding or taking away from the mix intentionally would be folly in ways we can't predict or won't notice until it's "too late" for one reason or another.
In other words, there's no way we can know if the recreation of one species will call off 5 others..

b



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
90% of the species ever on this planet are extinct...... let nature play its role without thinking we humans should mess with it, the planet will be here long after we are



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
It just seems like a waste of time to me... they are gone, the world has continued well (enough) in their absence, so why bother bringing them back, theirs enough we already don't know about the world and beyond, so why should we add more to it?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I'm kinda busy so I haven't really read many posts but I would like to quickly say that life and death are two sides of the same coin, and that one may not exist without the other. The same goes for evolution and extinction, without one the other cannot exist. Dinosaurs don't exist today, and if they did we wouldn't...we would have all been eaten a long time ago.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It would be great for purposes of studying the creatures, but other than that i think we should reserve the use for cloning animals to things that we as a species have made extinct to bring things back into balance.
but if we did start to clone and modify creatures i want a teacup T-Rex



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wtfisthat
It would be great for purposes of studying the creatures, but other than that i think we should reserve the use for cloning animals to things that we as a species have made extinct to bring things back into balance.
but if we did start to clone and modify creatures i want a teacup T-Rex


But their is no balance for them anymore, they are extinct and they spot in the ecosystem got taken up by something else, their has been so much talk about animal issues in australia with the toads and boars and that stuff. Imagine what would happen if they brought back the thylacine, cane toads are a hassle, but carniverous "dogs", does that really sound like something you want to run amok in your backyard?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by BloodRedSky
 



Very dramatic, and surely heartfelt. I am aware that humans have contributed to the extinction of many species. But to say that all the species that we have been discussing the possibility of resurrecting have been shot to death by humans is just not so. We have no evidence that mammoths were hunted to extinction by guns. Or even arrows, spears and rocks.

It is very likely that a combination of predation by humans and other animals along with climate change did them in.



Im not talking about cloning mammoths though, in my opinion thats where things would go bad. Whether shot by humans or killed by transplanted animals brought by humans doesnt constitute natural selection in my view.

I hate how we destroy everything beautiful.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by awakened1
90% of the species ever on this planet are extinct...... let nature play its role without thinking we humans should mess with it, the planet will be here long after we are


"We humans" are the reason so many are extinct, if we hadnt come along with our guns, pets and diseases that didnt belong in those areas nature could have taken its course.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Off topic but Im so happy that an intelligent discussion is taking place here...FINALLY!



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodRedSky
 


I think it's excellent idea depending on what you are wanting to bring back..you would want to think about where the animal fits into the food chain and all that.

the Tas tiger would be cool...it should still be alive,but it was hunted hardcore right? so they should bring it back


i heard they are working on Dino's...hehe..i bet they can make Dino's right now.

interesting topic,thanks for bringing it up



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skipper1975
reply to post by BloodRedSky
 


I think it's excellent idea depending on what you are wanting to bring back..you would want to think about where the animal fits into the food chain and all that.

the Tas tiger would be cool...it should still be alive,but it was hunted hardcore right? so they should bring it back


i heard they are working on Dino's...hehe..i bet they can make Dino's right now.

interesting topic,thanks for bringing it up


Yeah, the Tasmanian Tiger was hunted with extreme prejudice. Every animal deserves a fair shake, let nature take its course. If the animals die off naturally it just wasnt meant to be. Who knows, an animal we destroyed could hold the key to great things.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
So... Australia has a poor track record for introduced animals running amok, the thylacine was hunted to extinction for multiple attacks on farmers sheep...

It just sounds like a bad idea to me.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well what else would you expect from a carnivore? Seems like an easy meal to me. They still deserve a fair chance, as I said, something great could come from it.

Also, Poe, read my post a bit more carefully next time and try to post something that lends to the debate.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by BloodRedSky]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by BloodRedSky]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
The tasmanian tiger used to be very prominent in mainland australia as well, but by the time europeans landed in mainland australia the thylacine population was wiped out entirely by competition for food and territory from dingoes and indiginous humans, leaving a miniscule amount left in tasmania. We didn't do the majority of the extincting. There was little to no place for them when they were around, and there is less now that their gone.

I don't know about other animals for bringing back from extinction, but the BEST thing to be mentioned on the forum so far is the thylacine, which I think is just plain irresponsible.

But thats just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
It seems to me like there could be some animals we could learn from. Like sharks I believe are immune to desease along those lines. I could see some benifits from this but tnot many.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Landphil
It seems to me like there could be some animals we could learn from.


So now it's not even about giving them another chance but cloning them and then poking at their insides for information.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I'm suprise that no one here ever heard of reports of the Tasamian Tiger sightings not just on the Island, but on the Mainland itself. I believe the creature is still alive, but not really having an nitch anymore. So far I have read stories of probing of the Mammoth DNA. It would be interesting to have one around back. But if time travel is possible, Cloning would be a waste of time. It would be easier to capture entire herds and introduce them to game parks around the world.

Also Jurassic Park, um i believe that no one in there right mind will ever create such a park, but we do have alot of people on this planet that are not in there right minds anyway. I hope you guys don't get eaten. LOL





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join