- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Should we bring back extinct species?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Should we bring back extinct species? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 18 2017, 03:49 AM (1,936 Views) | |
| + Pyrus | Jan 18 2017, 08:37 PM Post #16 |
 
|
I think Jurassic Park covered this fairly well, even if it didn't go extremely in-depth in the movie.
"Should we?" is a fair point, as well as questioning how we have any idea what to expect, at least pertaining to the older species being pointed at. A flock of birds from 10 years ago, sure, we could probably make something out of that, but bringing back a mammoth from thousands of years ago, good luck fitting that into today's world. I would love to see a Tyrannosaurus rex tearing up some elephants (I mean, naturally), but it just wouldn't be viable. And to the point of bringing back a pure specimen, I don't think it's possible, is it? You'd have to fill in the gaps with DNA from another. Edited by Pyrus, Jan 18 2017, 08:38 PM.
|
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
 |
 
|
| + Steve | Jan 18 2017, 10:03 PM Post #17 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
In answer to "Should we?" "Why shouldn't we?" The only reason I can think of for why we should never do it at all is really just religiousy "We'll anger God!" reasons which has no place in science. In a controlled environment there's no real reason not to. I'm sure if there was risk of some sort of crazy zombie plague we'd have some sort of evidence for it with all the fossils and frozen specimens we've found. Potential diseases like I mentioned maybe but it's not like there's any chance of a world ending catastrophe the second a cloned sabre tooth tiger stands up. Probably not anyway. |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
| Dingo | Jan 18 2017, 10:16 PM Post #18 |
 
|
I don't agree with that. There are plenty of non-religious ethical arguments people could make against this idea. Whether you agree with them or not you shouldn't just discount them all together just because you want to see a mammoth in a zoo. |
|
Wisdom Wisdom Pack
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 18 2017, 11:35 PM Post #19 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
What are they then? This is under the assumption that it's inherently wrong...what reason is there to believe that? There is no reason to feel that way other than what movies tell us but in the real world there hasn't been some huge catastrophe caused by this sort of thing. Kind of weird we tell ourselves it's bad really. Is it not equally bad to create new species then? Because virtually every breed of dog is man made and there's loads of genetically altered animals out there nobody minds. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Tinny | Jan 19 2017, 12:38 AM Post #20 |
 
|
We shouldn't do it for a crappy reason like "Why not?" that is part of how we get experiments like driving baby monkeys insane by raising them without anything even slightly resembling a mother figure (not even a piece of cloth that looks like one). Creating clones of the recently extinct to repopulate areas, creating clones for ethical research after showing that there is no other way to gather the info and that the results are in fact worth it, is fine by me. Bringing back a wooly mammoth just to put it in a zoo is stupid, dangerous, and likely cruel to the animal (especially of the animal, not just a mammoth but anything) if their environment doesn't fit the conditions of captivity (like say, a Great White). However, using them to help with medical advances, or some other experiment that would benifit the greater good would be a situation in which we can allow cloning. Just not making them for literal Jurassic Park. The clones need to be treated the same ethically as any other animal. |
 Above signature created by Graffiti 
| |
|
|
|
| Dingo | Jan 19 2017, 12:55 AM Post #21 |
|
I don't feel like reading atm but I will do a quick google search and link the first scholarly type source I find: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=bioethics_papers Edit Fine I won't be totally lazy and will quickly copy and paste a small part of that .edu link Spoiler: click to toggle ^And this is just the ethics of cloning existing animals with perfect DNA samples. Extinct animals opens up so many more cans of worms it hurts my head. tl;dr this is far from a cut and dry issue and there are plenty of arguments to be made from both sides. It's not as simple as "why not." Some academics could probably dedicate their lives to this topic. Edited by Dingo, Jan 19 2017, 02:13 AM.
|
|
Wisdom Wisdom Pack
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 19 2017, 01:41 AM Post #22 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I just don't see how "Why not" is any more crappy a reason to do it than "Why" is to not to it. And again with animal suffering, if people are really that bothered why do we tolerate the way animals are treated in some places? People only really do much about animal testing if it's a cute animal like dogs. It's really not any reason to not do it considering the arguably worse things we put up with. Like I said so long as we apply the same level of ethics we give other animals then it's fine, we probably wouldn't use "hurr durr it's extinct" as some stupid reason to see how much torture the animals can endure 'cause how many times can a giant beaver be shot before it dies. The ends justifies the means in my opinion, perfecting cloning technology is worthwhile, just cloning rats over and over hardly qualifies. If nothing else it'd be good just to figure out how to more effectively clone organs or blood for our own survival. As well as that the educational benefits would be awesome. Though before that we definitely need a reform on how zoos work, current conditions are terrible pretty much everywhere. We research tons of s*** that's ultimately pointless, much money is poured in to useless information which further adds to "Why not?" if we're going to waste nearly $400,000 giving Swedish massages to rabbits why not do something interesting? Potentially inspiring too. How much more interested would people be in becoming scientists if they seen a mastodon recreated with it. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Tinny | Jan 19 2017, 01:59 AM Post #23 |
|
Are you suggesting we shouldn't have ethics in experiments or that we should intervene, diplomatically, economically, or militarily in nations that don't? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that. You seem to be aggressively agreeing with me. "Why not" is in fact a bad reason. You need some reason to do something. I'm not exactly talking about reasons like "if we don't do this millions will die" I'm talking about benefits outweighing the risks and potential emotional damage. For the most part experiments involving live animals mainly study behavior and are performed as humanely as possible. And yes, perfecting cloning technology does bring a whole host of uses that can be worth it potentially, I'm talking about the suggestion that we bring back extinct species so we can recreate Jurassic Park, or rather Jurassic world since we already have seen Jurassic Park, making a zoo exhibit isn't a good enough reason as I see it. Cloning the mammoth to study it and perhaps find out a great deal more about past life and maybe even help with medicine can be a reason, making it to give it a zoo exhibit because that would be cool is not. The difference between "Why not" with bacteria and "why not" with animal testing (clone or not) is that it will involve a real life specimen being tested that can potentially suffer. There's a difference between performing experiments regarding either cellular organisms or nonliving beings, and performing experiments with people or animals. Studying the effect of a baby monkey growing up without a mother figure, almost certainly damaging it psychologically even driving it insane, needs more than "why not," as a reason. And this should apply to clones as well. Cloning something for experiments that can cause it undue stress or pain needs a real reason for it, and a reason we can't use an alternative. My position is simple, cloning should be done ethically, and experiments on clones should be done ethically, and cloning should not be done without an end goal in mind and regardless if you feel their reason isn't good enough, they need a satisfactory reason for any experiments they are doing, with benefits that outweigh the costs be they medical, educational, or something else (again, even if you don't feel that the knowledge gained isn't good enough) to the one being experimented on. Experiments on clones should be done ethically, as in "All procedures involving animals must be supervised by psychologists who are trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals and who are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of the animal's comfort, health, and humane treatment." "Psychologists must make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animals." "Psychologists may use a procedure that subjects an animal to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative procedure is justified by the scientific, educational, or applied value of the study." "Psychologists must perform all surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and must minimize an animal's pain during and after surgery." I don't think I'm asking for much, and the indication that we shouldn't care about the well being of what we create, or the well being of animals because other people don't seems rather baffling to me, to where I'm almost certain that's not actually what you're trying to say. Edited by Tinny, Jan 19 2017, 02:22 AM.
|
|
Above signature created by Graffiti
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 19 2017, 03:13 AM Post #24 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
No, just that the line between what's ethical and what's not makes no sense. We wouldn't be cloning anything to just chuck it in a pit of fire so I don't see why cloning an animal is outright unethical as if there's no variables there to consider.
Where did I suggest that's all we should do? That's just a neat little after effect(it's 3AM I have no idea how else to describe that, after effect may not make sense) Like if we made 50 mammoths that could survive outside as well as a bunch of other creatures...why not make a safari park for them? It's better than just killing them or keeping them in a lab until they die, bit of a waste. I generally agree with the rest of what you say there.
Obviously we should take care of what we create and be mindful of what we create(or recreate I guess) but I just don't get the stance of "We shouldn't do it because there might be some suffering there" How many rats have we injected with horrific diseases humans can't even get, that we have no intention to cure, just to see what it does to them? And yet cloning is somehow without question some sort of evil to some people. Makes no sense to me. Especially not when people agree with it for recently extinct species...being selective doesn't change the amount of suffering there and that's still something being done just "because we can" We won't actually needto clone gorillas if the last ones get killed but we probably will. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Jan 19 2017, 09:13 AM Post #25 |
|
Oh, Steve. Don't come to the house tonight.Why do you tolerate the way animals are treated in some places, and even advocate further torturing them for—what sounds like—funsies? Though, you must be aware by now that not everyone thinks like you. The ethics you apply to other animals is simply appalling. So, no, it's not fine. Not fine at all. Why ever not? It's all in the name of knowledge, after all. And you said other people were being selective. Your means of line-drawing is almost fascinating. Pray tell how reintroducing extinct animals would go anymore towards perfectly cloning humans for organ-harvesting than cloning existing animals does? It just amounts to more victims, and for some of survivors of which you'll end up having to make innumerable more victims in order to feed, lest you feel you're not treating them "humanely". And you speak as if animal experimentation in general is ethical. It's not. Just because it's done in abundance, and in some cases has been of some benefit to us, doesn't mean it's ethical, and it certainly doesn't mean it's ethical to needlessly—in that the results wouldn't even save a single life in a laughable claim at tipping the scales back—do more of it. What is "the greater good"? Because it sounds an awful lot like "for the good of humans" to me. I'm certainly loath to consider that the "greater" good - or even good at all. Just beneficial to some of us. Even if you want to point out that other animals could gain from such means, you're still picking the victims you abuse and torture in pursuit of it, and using it to help the ones that you deem worthy of help. There's nothing compassionate about it, unless you ignore the entirety of the image to admire a small piece of it, and only more piles of victims for humanity's selfishness. Never heard of an animal rights activist? You know, those gratingly-stupid people that think they're so much better than everyone else even though they don't even possess a sense of humour? Yes, yes - the skinny boy is one of the girls. |
|
|
|
| * Mitas | Jan 19 2017, 12:32 PM Post #26 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
I think that is exactly what it means in the minds of most people. |
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2017, 02:29 PM Post #27 |
|
To me, Steve's argument sounds a lot like "there's suffering going on in the world already, so it doesn't hurt to add to it." This line of logic is not only flawed, but it's dangerous. We can't just add to the suffering of animals for the greater good of humans when there's already so much suffering we have caused. You ask "why not put them in safaris or zoos?" and again I ask "why would we?" Why would we bring back an extinct species only to extract it for something useful to humans and then confine it to a safari or zoo, placing it in a habitat that we can only assume would be good for it? Because let's be honest here, we really don't know what it takes for something like a woolly mammoth to thrive. Once we have extracted it for anything valuable, we place it in a confined space for the amusement of humans? Does that really sound like a good idea to you? When aimed at a zoo advocate it might, but I encourage you to research the ethics of zoos and safaris. Most of them are not what you seem to think they are. The general problem with the pro-cloning argument is that it serves only to benefit humans and stems from the god complex that many of us seem to have--that because we are sentient, intelligent beings, we are therefore superior to the other lifeforms that exist on the planet that we share. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 19 2017, 10:02 PM Post #28 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I guess we'll just ignore the other stuff I said and make it sound like the only thing I was aiming for was free mammoth rides for kids under 6, m'kay. And that I said zoos need big changes before that because they're pretty crap as it stands.
I don't see legions of people travelling to places where livestock is kept in especially poor conditions to try free them or whatever. Nobody could stop thousands of people going in and freeing animals from these places, if people cared as much as you like to suggest they'd do more than berate others and moan about it on the internet.
The ethics most of the human race tolerates you mean? You say that like it's not common knowledge that animals are tortured and tested on constantly. People don't do much to protest that but it's especially bad to clone things? At most you'll get a few hundred people outside a lab with signs when they decide one practice is worse than the others they choose to ignore.
Because in general we'd be learning to clone things more efficiently anyway? Cloning one type of animal will only go so far and we refuse to clone ourselves(so far as is public knowledge that is) many people can barely wrap their heads around stem cell research. There's really no difference in ethics between cloning something from a species that currently lives and cloning something that's from a recently or long dead species. They're all animals, how do you define which are especially tragic to clone? Recent animals are better, because? Only bring back herbivores then? Or just not feed any carnivores? Is that better? We add to the pile of victims simply by existing, fairly sure we can just share the needlessly huge amount of food we generate. Notice how I've said tolerate a few times, why do you make it sound like I've personally decided all the testing we do is friendly behaviour? If people cared all that much animal testing wouldn't be a thing, it is a thing, some of it is barbaric but that's largely ignored, cloning however is not tolerable to the selective morality people seem to have. I just don't see how cloning is especially bad compared to other stuff we do and other things we will undoubtedly end up doing for no good reason, if we're going to do something it should at least have benefits and be fascinating. Seeing how long tetanus takes to kill a donkey is neither fascinating nor useful but we're still going to breed or clone animals to do that kind of thing anyway. Why such passion against cloning and not...pretty much every area of science that involves non human animals? This is the selectiveness I don't get. Hardly anyone minds that millions of cows are raped and kept pregnant constantly just so we can have oceans of milk that mostly won't get used, as well as more meat per day than our entire species could possibly consume in a week. These are just but the advancement of science is not. Edited by Steve, Jan 19 2017, 10:03 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 19 2017, 10:45 PM Post #29 |
|
Your entire argument is a straw-man, Steve. You seem to have this preconceived notion that we all don't actively fight against other injustices, despite the fact that you have no idea what any of us do to help with animal rights. It's difficult to argue with you when you seem to be making constant assumptions about what our arguments even are. In fact, your entire post here is just one big assumption about what every human on the planet personally believes. We don't care about the overproduction of meat, but we do care about cloning? Says who? Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Jan 19 2017, 10:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 19 2017, 10:55 PM Post #30 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Most people just don't care enough to actually do anything, tell me how I'm wrong. Hence why I've said tolerate a lot because no matter the level of care people have probably not even 1% take action. If 95% of people on the planet fight for animal rights constantly...why is animal testing a thing then? Nothing could get in the way of those numbers. It's pretty obvious that most people don't do anything just by observation, it's hardly assumption. Maybe a few million people are always out there trying to change things but the other billions aren't bothering are they? |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:41 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy