|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Extinct animal resurrected by cloning! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Announced a couple of days ago: Extinct ibex resurrected by cloning
The Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, was officially declared extinct in 2000 when the last-known animal of its kind was found dead in northern Spain. Shortly before its death, scientists preserved skin samples of the goat, a subspecies of the Spanish ibex that live in mountain ranges across the country, in liquid nitrogen. Using DNA taken from these skin samples, the scientists were able to replace the genetic material in eggs from domestic goats, to clone a female Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo as they are known. It is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned. Discuss? - does this approach have a real future?- current state of the art of cloning? - is it wise to make a lot of publicity around this (possibly diminishing attention for preservation of species)? Kinda like how the availability of AIDS medication made risk groups less vigilant. - ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Annafan,
I never fully considered the possible NEGATIVE ramifications of cloning. ". . . is it wise to make a lot of publicity around this (possibly diminishing attention for preservation of species)?". Hmmm. Interesting thought. Personally, I have long dreamed for scientists recreating a wooly mammoth before I die. Animal News - Science and Zoology Articles I have trekked to see the mountain gorillas in Rwanda in 2002. Searched for the snow leopard in Nepal. Would love to see the tiger in nature someday (especially the siberian tiger). However, I feel everyday a new starbucks is built, another animal is lost somewhere in the world. IF it is inevitable that man will eventually crowd out his fellow neighbors, it might be best that scientists quickly learn the cloning skills. my 2 cents. Cogito, ergo Deus non est
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
dronester writes: I never fully considered the possible NEGATIVE ramifications of cloning.... Hmmm. Interesting thought. The idea is that, with all the hyperbole and oversimplifications that are so typical for mass media, the general public could get the impression from these kind of headlines that the problem of the extinction of species "has been solved". This could significantly impact the acceptance of policies which aim for preservation, but against a certain cost (economical, liberties, convenience...). This while of course successes like these are merely micro-steps. If you have one clone, you don't even have a pair to breed. You have zero genetic diversity. It's only possible when you have a closely related species available to carry the fertilized egg upto birth (and how "genuine" will the eventual animal be in that case?). There probably isn't a habitat available, etc. etc. etc. It's not even CLOSE to reanimate an extinct species, recent or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
It's not even CLOSE to reanimate an extinct species, recent or not. To be pedantic, cloning an extinct species would be reanimating it. Simply because of what reanimate means. However, cloning is not really a way to recreate a viable population of an extinct species. A one trick goat, as it were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Just to clarify my original post, I think re-populating the world with a VIABLE population of extinct animals is a moot point. Animals are becoming extinct at an incredible rate right now. If there is no room for today's animals, why would we think there might be room for extinct animals tomorrow.
Edited by dronester, : link expired
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Here's a general question for anybody:
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population? Would there be value in preserving or "resurrecting" a species that cannot be returned to its natural condition? -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Good questions Bluejay.
1. I think out of sight, out of mind might hold true. So, the best chance a young child/scientist can come up with a possible solution in the future is if there is a living/seeing problem to solve. 2. Also, I think it imperative we maintain diversity of all living things (even if caged) in the world. 3. Personally, if the only live gorilla I can see is at a progressive naturalistic zoo or none at all, I guess I'll grudgingly accept the zoo. This is a depressing subject to me. My answers are self-admittedly somewhat emotional-biased and can be discounted. Do you have a more objective stance Bluejay? Annafan? Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I'd say it certainly has aesthetic value. WHo amongst us wouldn't love to see a mammoth or a dodo in a zoo? For that matter, if the great apes go extinct over the course of the next century, I think it could only be a good thing that we could still see the populations living in zoos.
It must have academic value as well. Even if a cloned animal in an unnatural habitat couldn't tell us much about the behaviour of the extinct species, there must still be all manner of studies scientists could do of their morphology and biochemistry, which they wouldn't be able to do with fossils and a DnA sample or two. And it definitely has economic value, too - provided the extinct animal is cute/impressive/popular.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Bluejay,
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population? It seems like a very ego-centric view point to have if one would be in anyway satisfied with looking at a captive animal while not taking an interest in stopping the the mechanisms that is reducing their natural habitate to begin with. The money spent on research for cloning extinct animals can be put to better use in preserving their natural habitates. It's the same approach that should be taken with cancer. Not that research for cancer isn't needed, but a portion of that money, IMHO, should be used to prevent the sale of products that have been known to increase the risk of cancer, or in making organic products more affordable and better advertised. (Off topic)
Would there be value in preserving or "resurrecting" a species that cannot be returned to its natural condition? Only a financial value, like with Disneys Animal Kingdom. The Disney family would stand to gain an enormous amount of money if they can build a park exibiting extinct animals. Then the occational tourist can visit the park, see the extinct animal alive and walk away never take any interest in it again. What value can that have in a moral or ethical sense? If we don't care about the animal or its environment when it's alive, why try to pretend we care about them when they're extinct? I don't blame scientist for wanting to clone an extinct animal since achieving that would be an amazing thing, but, other than it being a scientific achievement, I see no other value that isn't driven by financial greed. Im reminded of the atomic bomb in that sense. - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3122 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Hi Onifire,
Only a financial value, like with Disneys Animal Kingdom. The Disney family would stand to gain an enormous amount of money if they can build a park exibiting extinct animals. Then the occational tourist can visit the park, see the extinct animal alive and walk away never take any interest in it again. What value can that have in a moral or ethical sense? If we don't care about the animal or its environment when it's alive, why try to pretend we care about them when they're extinct? Jurassic Park the movie makes a good case study of the ethics or lack thereof of resurrecting exinct animals through cloning. This also is a good treatise on the unfortunate dilemna in which scientists and researchers are subject to the financial whims of for-profit finanicial institutions and corporations. Without money the world will not go round, even for science and medicine. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
I don't think they all have to be kept in captivity forever. For example, we could repopulate certain islands with dodos.
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Onifre.
Thanks for the response.
onifre writes: The money spent on research for cloning extinct animals can be put to better use in preserving their natural habitates. Well, you certainly raise a good point: sooner or later, we're bound to have to face the dilemma of continuing to rape nature or initiating human population control. I'm afraid to think of the wars that might be waged over that issue, but this dilemma is surely coming. But, trade-offs aside, if an animal is clearly doomed (or if we have already killed it off), and there is no way to feasibly return it to the wild, is it morally warranted for us to preserve a few specimens? The other responders have mentioned the value of conservation for human benefit, but, what about nature's benefit? Would preserving an otherwise-doomed animal in captivity (perhaps through cloning) be a way to sort of "make it up" to Mother Nature? It seems that, whatever we do, it will have a major impact on the natural world and its future, which kind of makes it hard to decide what the "right" thing to do is. Enforced isolation of wildernesses would be a noble goal, but probably impossible to achieve. Killing some animals off causes ecological imbalances. Preserving all species may impact ecological succession and alter evolutionary patterns. If the "right" thing to do is to preserve nature's sovereignty over itself, it seems we've already failed. I personally feel that preserving as much wilderness and as many species as we can, even if only by keeping small captive populations, is morally the safest stance we can take, given our options. But, on a purely practical basis, I'm not sure there is a solid justification for this, because it may effect the future just as much as killing things off, and, as Annafan said, there's a slippery slope there that would have to be guarded carefully. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, DevilsAdvocate.
DA writes: Jurassic Park the movie makes a good case study of the ethics or lack thereof of resurrecting exinct animals through cloning. I personally think there is absolutely nothing of value in Jurassic Park beyond cool special effects (already starting to look a bit dated) and the imaginative and emotional appeal of people getting to come face-to-face with dinosaurs. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Would preserving an otherwise-doomed animal in captivity (perhaps through cloning) be a way to sort of "make it up" to Mother Nature? Make it up to her? She's the one that doomed them in the first place.
The other responders have mentioned the value of conservation for human benefit, but, what about nature's benefit? For all the damage we've done with invasive exotic species, I think it'd be best for us to let nature handle her own benefits rather than us trying to help and end up fucking it up anyways.
But, trade-offs aside, if an animal is clearly doomed (or if we have already killed it off), and there is no way to feasibly return it to the wild, is it morally warranted for us to preserve a few specimens? Meh. Its amoral.
If the "right" thing to do is to preserve nature's sovereignty over itself, it seems we've already failed. If you presume that we are a part of nature, then whatever failures we have are nature's too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024