De-Extinction: Is it good or bad?

[Izeroth]

 

I disagree. Look at Siberia, Russia. Mostly uninhabited. Grasslands are dying without mammoths.

Also, the permafrost is melting. Research has indicated that the trampling of large animals would keep the grass from melting, and thus keep it from releasing co2 into the atmosphere. (Look up Pliocene park for a good example.)

[LT Sandpaw]

Extinct animals are extinct because they couldn't survive in the Modern world. If Humans were capable we would destroy every single Mosquito to the brink of extinction. We would also destroy many types of diseases and a few plants, such as poison Ivy and in my case that evil cactus. The thing is these creatures and plants have been able to evade and escape our violent arm for ever and will continue to do so. While the less capable will die out like they have, for centuries.

[Hickory]

Bad relation, but for those that have seen the 2014 Godzilla, it's as Sandpaw said. Natural elimination. Natures boss on planet earth.

[The Mask]

Extinct animals are extinct because they couldn't survive in the Modern world. If Humans were capable we would destroy every single Mosquito to the brink of extinction. We would also destroy many types of diseases and a few plants, such as poison Ivy and in my case that evil cactus. The thing is these creatures and plants have been able to evade and escape our violent arm for ever and will continue to do so. While the less capable will die out like they have, for centuries.

Nope I respectively disagree.
I'm tired and can't think right now but I shall reply...later!

[Izeroth]

Extinct animals are extinct because they couldn't survive in the Modern world. If Humans were capable we would destroy every single Mosquito to the brink of extinction. We would also destroy many types of diseases and a few plants, such as poison Ivy and in my case that evil cactus. The thing is these creatures and plants have been able to evade and escape our violent arm for ever and will continue to do so. While the less capable will die out like they have, for centuries.

By that logic, we should just let all the endangered animals go extinct. Why bother leaving pandas or elephants? Why try to save rhinos? They don't help us, right? Aren't they "too weak" to survive in the modern world?

I think that this is not a case of too weak, but a case of too strong. I don't think we should let animals go extinct (or not attempt to bring back some animals from extinction, for that matter) just because they aren't powerful enough to go up against us. Take the passenger pigeon, for example: these birds once numbered in the billions, but they went extinct in the span of a few decades because of greed and over hunting. Did they deserve to go extinct just because they couldn't deal with thousands and thousands of hunters? Do forests deserve to get completely annihilated just because they can't deal with our axes and saws?

[Romsca]

If the ecosystem has since compensated for their loss then it would be like introducing an entirely new species now. Almost always ends in disaster.

[Jetthebinturong]

Extinct animals are extinct because they couldn't survive in the Modern world. If Humans were capable we would destroy every single Mosquito to the brink of extinction. We would also destroy many types of diseases and a few plants, such as poison Ivy and in my case that evil cactus. The thing is these creatures and plants have been able to evade and escape our violent arm for ever and will continue to do so. While the less capable will die out like they have, for centuries.

So once humans are the only living things left on Earth it won't be our fault? It is inevitable that we will destroy the world, it's already dying. Animals are endangered due to humanity, humanity that hunts them for medicine or destroys their homes to make way for more humanity, that's their fault? We're killing them because they can't adapt to us? Well of course they can't, they don't have the chance!

Take the dodo, killed off in a matter of days, weeks or months, they did not have time to adapt, they had never encountered predators before, they were too trusting and they were wiped out because of it.

Humanity WILL destroy this world, hopefully not in our lifetimes but I strongly believe that it WILL happen and when it does, there will be no one to blame but us

[LT Sandpaw]

Okay sorry guys I should have worded that better, I'm not saying these animals should be wiped off the face of the earth. What I'm saying is we wanted some things to go extinct while others actually die off. It would be generally cruel too bring an animal back just to kill it again. The thing is as a species we have dominated this world, and to conquer something there's always a price.

A Dodo was the price for human greed. Maybe the people thought the bird was ugly and annoying, maybe they ate the farmers plants. With something like the mosquito there's not a lot you can do, but with a Dodo you can hunt it to death and then Boom, their gone. It's the same with many creatures. The others are killed by expansion, their in the way, who cares we need three thousand new homes.

I know this might sound horrible but I would rather see a species go extinct then see thousands of homeless starving people. The world is a beautiful place, I know, I have been alone in nature with nothing but my horse and dog for several days at a time, I can't imagine the destruction that might happen in ten or even five years. But sadly it is necessary for our survival that the animals must die.

We may be destroying this world but we can save what we can.

It is definitely our fault.

[The Mask]

I don't think it's likely we'll be killing it off again. We know now how fragile the ecosystem is and how easy it is to make things extinct. That said SOME people(poachers *cough*) still don't now that.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

A Dodo was the price for human greed. Maybe the people thought the bird was ugly and annoying, maybe they ate the farmers plants.

Really? I'm pretty sure sailors didn't just set up farms in the islands. Also, I'm pretty sure that overhunting and invasive species brought by humans was the reason for their extinction.

[Rusvul]

   Humans are greedy, destructive, overpopulated, and careless. We're superior only to other creatures only in our own heads, there's nothing that makes us intrinsically better than any other creature, we just like to think we are. And destroying millions of lives because we can't control our own population, only to have to destroy millions more... Where's it end? What about after the earth is 100% city, once we've colonized everything and the earth has no ecosystem left?

Animals are happy to live with whatever conditions their habitats have. They don't complain about the heat or cold in their natural home, because they've adapted to live with it. Humans have spread far and wide, conforming everything to our extensive needs. If we want something, we take it, simply because no-one can stop us.

[Mhera]

Humans are greedy, destructive, overpopulated, and careless.

The question I have is why hasn't the world become grossly over populated already? The population doubles every 40 years. Going back 50,000 years and starting with 2 people, let's say the population doubles every 150 years (to account for increased hardships in the past). (Actually, let's take 150 years off the 50,000 because my calculator read "OVERFLOW ERROR" when I try that multiplication...heh, my calculator is overpopulated). This would put the population at 8.75x10⁹⁹, or

screen stretch

8,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[close]

people (give or take a few zeros, I'm pretty sure I counted right though). That's quite a few more than the 7,000,000,000 people we have.

What gives?

[Jetthebinturong]

The world IS overpopulated, most scientists predict that we'll run out of food to sustain ourselves within twenty years

[James Gryphon]

World population estimates from experts on the subject.

[Mhera]

Well, the assertion that the earth is over populated is debatable, as are the some of the population tables in the link. The only problem is that that's not the point of this thread (so I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, heh) and going into it all would take things way off topic. If anyone wants to talk about it PM me or start another thread or whatever, I'd still be happy to discuss it.

For the original topic question, my opinion is a tentative "no". Assuming it's even possible in the first place, I can see possibly bringing back one of two extinct species members for research purposes. But trying to repopulate a whole species could have unintended and disastrous repercussions if it worked (think rabbits in Australia). With that said, the amount of inbreeding necessary to bring back a huge population would probably kill the species pretty quick anyway.