Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extinct animal resurrected by cloning!
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 19 (497698)
02-05-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
02-05-2009 3:37 PM


Bluejay writes:
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.
I don't entirely agree. If I remember correctly, there were indeed some issues raised in the film of whether or not it was a good idea to bring back creatures whose habitats no longer exist.
And with that point I agree. If the habitat for a creature no longer exists, then why should we bring it back, it's got no more place to live.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 17 of 19 (497699)
02-05-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
02-05-2009 3:37 PM


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.
LOL, I agree about the movie but I was talking about the premise of the story written by Michael Crichton. That is of creating a Disney like park chalk full of cloned extenct animals with no thorough scientific research conducted of the ramifications this could pose on our current precarously balanced ecosystem, in the name of profit.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 19 (497723)
02-05-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
02-05-2009 3:34 PM


Hi Bluejay,
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?
For the purpose of education I can see it as possibly being a good, interesting thing, but, to clone it and then exibit it, I would say no. There are plenty of living animals to care for.
Ignoring the fact that we destroyed their habitate, which caused their disappearance, the species is now gone, time to focus on the living. Of course i'm only speaking about species that we've caused to go extinct. If a species naturally went extinct - viewing it from a nonscientific achievement perspective - we should bid farewell to them and study them as we currently do.
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?
I personally think the best way to achieve that is to just not fuck with it. RAZD has said he is a "leave no trace" camper, I am too, the reason being that we fuck with nature when we don't. We are now beyond the ability to leave no trace, unless we just stay out of it in an industrial capacity. This of course will not happen, so forget about "making it up" to mother nature at this point.
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.
I would not say "whatever" we do will make it hard to decide what the right thing to do is. Clearly, not destroying these animals environment for the purpose of industrialization is the right thing to do. Deciding whether or not to bring an animal back who we've already caused to die off could only be considered a right or wrong choice when one has ignored the horrific act of having killed them off to begin with. If you have ignored that fact already then we should just do as we please - bring them back to life if you want, or not, it doesn't matter - because it will lend absolutly no moral weight on the issue. Morality left long time ago.
Killing some animals off causes ecological imbalances. Preserving all species may impact ecological succession and alter evolutionary patterns.
I don't think we should try to preserve the species, just not fuck with it's environment. The species will take care of itself; to quote Rocky 4: If he dies, he dies. But we don't have to expedite that by reducing the species environment which it uses for the benefit of its own survival.
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.
I honestly have no moral issue at this point with either keeping them captive of not, like I said, once we stopped concerning ourselves with the species original existance it doesn't make much moral difference what we do after that point, IMHO.
- 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:34 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 19 of 19 (497880)
02-06-2009 12:26 PM


It was a subspecies of the iberian ibex. Just import some other Iberian ibex into the region if you want Ibex in the pyranees again.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024