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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
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.

One small point, we ARE part of nature.

It is our own arrogance that has allowed us to set ourselves above nature, or somehow categorize the world as Us/Them.

We have never been separate from nature, and us causing destruction is as natural as if it were caused by some other animal out competing another species for habitat and resources. It has happened countless times in the history of life, we are just another example, we really arent that special.

And, we wont be any more exempt from nature when we overpopulate our environment, and outstrip our resources. When that occurs, we will be as subject to nature as any other creature. Sure we have technology, but, it can only do so much. We havent mastered nature, we have figured out an exploit. If and when that exploit becomes no longer viable, we will suffer the same fate as any other creature that over populated and used up all its resources.

I also wish we could use our technology to figure out another living arrangement here on Earth. I would like to see us control our population not only so that we dont have to kill off other species in droves, but so that we can assure a good standard of living for every human as well. The fact is, we have several different "types" of humans in terms of consciousness. (Not ethnicity or race mind you) Some still carry the very ancient "Kill everything that isnt us so we can make more of us" sort of "Selfish Gene" mentality. For some "us" only includes their individual self, a very contracted version of the concept. Some of us have realized that humans arent the "us," that the entire biosphere is the "us," a very expanded version. And there are many in between types.

If humans are going to have a chance to survive much longer, it seems that old consciousness is going to have to go extinct. It appears to be pretty destructive to both other species and our own. Nature has her ways of getting rid of the maladaptive. Although, we may have already served our purpose (all humans) in the scheme of life, and it there may be no need for even the more harmonious humans to persist. We will just have to see if some of us are maladaptive, or all of us are maladaptive in the long run.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:54 AM
Well in nature our diversity is always influenced. These animals were once a part of nature. But how many species are extinct as a result of human intervention? And how much of it is in fact, natural? Over history we have seen the extinction of countless species. And then we have seen many evolve. But diversity has always been encouraged. I suppose we have more of an ability to apply control factors. I also believe that we may make unexpected discoveries as a result. You could take a philosophical view and say that it is the means by which we end humanities extinction of past species. But is this or is this not natural, is it simply a result of human nature. Is the nature of man contrary to nature itself? I believe that we can only learn from such an experience, and benefit from it, so I vote in favor of it.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by BloodRedSky

Whether it's good or bad all the depends the the animal impact on the ecosystem that it's released in. If scientists can introduce formerly extinct species into ecosystems while maintaining balance, then why not?

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:38 PM
I don't see any problems in cloning extinct animals and I think its a good idea, I'd love to go to the zoo and see a thylacine.. maybe even a real life jurassic park?

Animals like the thylacine deserve to be around, and I think Australia's ecosystem could handle it, the question is.. can the thylacine handle the ecosystem?

[edit on 26-8-2008 by WishForWings]

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:59 PM
well i think that the new species would interact well for the first generation seeing as how some current species must act as a surrogate parent, but after a few years when their numbers have risen and their genes and instincts are a little more 'pure' would we see how they would really have an effect on the other animals.

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:27 PM
I'm not going through the whole thing so i'm sorry if anyone else has said the same.

But for me it would totally depend on why they have died out,If the extinction was caused by humans in recent times,then i think it would be okay,But not for anything that has died out naturally.

That's my two cents =P

Good post btw.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Some species are extinct for a reason.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:17 PM
have we not all seen jarassic park. don't screw with nature. like the author said if we can clone the not so threating animals who is to say that we eventually wouldn't try it with a more dangerous animal

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

Except Dolly died of a lung cancer caused by a retrovirus. Other sheep at the institute (not clones) also died of the same cancer. Its actually quiet common in sheep housd indoors.

As far as has been established (using real life scientific methods) cloning does not lead to an unnaturally short life in animals. In fact, some experiments in the research worm C. elegans have shown that it may actually increase life span if careful choice of starting material is used. But the effect small, averaging 8-10% increase in these organisms.

Overall, can i ask why? Its not like any of these mammals had anything particularly special about them. Now, a mammal that was also capable of photosynthetic energy production, or something equally as unique- yeah, i could see the point. Although, to be honest, it would be easier to manufacture such organisms from scratch, rather than try to figure out a protocol for resurrecting long dead mammals from incomplete fragments of badly degraded DNA. We already can make bacteria that produce fuel grade alchohol (after a little cleaning up) and transgenic livestock that produce human insulin in their milk, which can be refined and used in diabetes treatments. We should focus on the future, not spending vast amounts of money to effectively create a themepark for reminiscing purposes

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:02 PM
Ever notice that shows like "Surface" never stay on the air very long anymore? The last show that even touched on real life problems from Earth was Sea Quest. I remember when I was first going to college that this kind of stuff was being considered. I almost went into biology just for the amusement of doing something like this. Just imagine cloning up a chicken with teeth or a giant armadillo. I mean, the humor goes on forever. I can think of some neighbors to terrorize with it, especially those of the religious variety. Oh the fun!

But more seriously, this stuff is very possible and very useful. I'm sure from my posts by now that people are getting used to the fact I don't like religion or religious people. They are irritating and get the way of progress. This field is one of those areas they get in the way of far too often.

Most of the diseases of the world could be taken care of using this stuff. Whether religious nutters like it or not, very shortly we'll all be living alot longer because of it. Some of us already are. Women too can give great thanks to this field though I'll leave it up to you all to figure out how that is. Men can too, although, in a more funneled down way for the most part. We all certainly look a bit nicer because of it compared to people from the previous generations.

This the stuff that certainly will also produce some very frightening things. I just would make that wish that the public would grow up a little bit and stop screaming and making a general delirium about how horrible this could be when the governments' are light years ahead of the public on this. The public restricting itself from something the government already has and is going to produce is like shooting meth to get it off the streets.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by MegaBears
Some species are extinct for a reason.

Yes, and recently we are the primary cause of that. So why can't we also put them back?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in