De-Extinction: Is it good or bad?

[Izeroth]

 So, a subject that has become increasingly popular is de-extinction.

What exactly is de-extinction?

It's the process of "resurrecting" a species that went extinct.

the pros:

-People will pay a lot of money to see these animals. The money can be used to pay for conservation projects.

-By studying these animals, we will be able to learn more about what earth was like when they were
around.

the cons:

-Why should we spend money bringing a couple extinct animals to life when there are hundreds of endangered animals to save?

-The world has changed a lot since these animals were alive. Who's to say they can even survive in the modern world?

What do you all think about this subject???

[rachel25]

Hmmmmm, an interesting point, you bringeth before me. I personally can't make my mind up on this one at the moment.

[Rainshadow]

  Two words:  Jurassic Park.  That's all I have to say on the matter.

  Okay, that wasn't really a serious answer, but I wanted to say it anyway.  I don't really have a serious answer, as I don't exactly know how I feel about the concept, but we've all (or at least most of us have) seen Jurassic Park.  We know how well that ended. 

[Cornflower MM]

I agree with Rain: Jurassic Park. Now, I'm not saying it's good or bad, exactly, but these animals died out for a reason. Now, could we have corrected that reason in the time span from the time that they went extinct until now? My thinking is is that that's not very likely. So, why don'yt you spend the moeny in a place where it will do good?

[Rusvul]

Um, that's technically correct- All extinct species did die out for a reason. But humanity has often been that reason- Dodos went extinct because they were delicious, easy to catch, and not very smart.

I think it's quite an interesting concept, I don't think we'd end up with a Jurassic Park type scenario if we were competent about it.

[Izeroth]

 If nature preserves were created for animals such as the dodo or passenger pigeon, they could survive, I think. The problem is: nature has moved on. The passenger pigeon hasn't been seen in North America for a hundred years, and introducing it back might be the same as introducing an invasive species. We really don't know how the ecosystem would be impacted.

FYI: We don't need to worry about Jurassic park. Dinosaurs are impossible to resurrect because their DNA is unviable by this point- it's all fossilized....

[Lutra]

This is how you create dinosaurs?

No...this is how you play God.

from Jurassic Park III

I don't need to say much else.

[Jetthebinturong]

If science is held back because of religious reasons I will fly into the sun

[Izeroth]

 Personally, I think people are playing god when they make things go extinct.

[The Mask]

Exactly what Lutra said. We may have made these creatures extinct, but we still have no right to bring them back. We may say that it's for conservation but really, its so we can look at them. I mean some, say the mammoth would really do good( the grass plains of Siberia? are dying out because there's nothing to graze on them.) but at the same time, it's not as cold as it was then and they're going to have evolve incredibly fast.

[Cornflower MM]

If science is held back because of religious reasons I will fly into the sun

*Opens mouth, then shuts it* Thank you ever so much, Dad. Can't even debate some things now. Yeesh! Jet, I'm just gonna say, I'll join you with flying into the sun.

Personally, I think people are playing god when they make things go extinct.

And what if we humans didn't have anything to do with it? Hmm? And I honestly don't think that if we resurrected everything that went extinct, we'd all have room on the planet. Humans have become big for their britches and started gobbling up room. Have you noticed we're quite selfish creatures?

[MeadowR]

Very good point made about the money being used to bring back extinct animals actually should be going to saving the animals we still have - just about - with us.

I don't think Jurassic Park is the best point to make here. Dinosaurs won't be coming back, (certainly we wouldn't have the right technology in our lifetimes) and such a large sized and amount of animals would not be brought back just like that.

However I don't see too much harm in bringing back, say, the Tasmanian wolf (thylacine), because it would still be able to adjust as it what, became extinct about 1912? 1919? and it's a relatively small creature. I'm no biologist! so I can't truly say whether it would cause big problems with other animals and farms, etc. Though arguments have been made similar to that for existing animals like wolves which have then been reintroduced to certain places. Any new animal coming in can create teething problems...

Creatures like mammoths, though... would be more problematic. Cool that they even think they could bring a mammoth back, but really I think in such cases it's best to leave such animals in the past.

[Wylder Treejumper]

I don't necessarily see the point- or methodology- of "ressurecting" extinct creatures. 98% of life is extinct- and most of it is not our fault. Extinction is part of life, and I say, let it be, and learn from what happened.

[Izeroth]

 There are, as I see it, two practical reasons for de-extinction. One is that we can use the money people pay to see them to fund conservation projects, like Everglades restoration for instance. Two is that archeologists could examine these animals' behavior in order to paint a better picture of what life was like back then. I think it wouldn't really hurt to have a few of these animals in zoos. Wild populations aren't really a good idea, I think. Mostly because no one can know for sure how it would change the ecosystems currently around...

[Cornflower MM]

. . . (certainly we wouldn't have the right technology in our lifetimes)

Considering the fact that we have cars that can drive themselves? I don't know about that . . . .

And, Izeroth, if they are put in zoos, think about all the info we DON'T know about these creatures. Something in the zoo could be completely and totally wrong, and then the moeny would be wasted.

I don't necessarily see the point- or methodology- of "ressurecting" extinct creatures. 98% of life is extinct- and most of it is not our fault. Extinction is part of life, and I say, let it be, and learn from what happened.

And you say what I've been trying to get through in three sentences, while it took me how many?