Should we bring back extinct species?

Rotation Advertisements

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:

Pages:
1
2
3

Should we bring back extinct species?
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 18 2017, 03:49 AM (1,934 Views)
~~Doggo Champion 2k17~~	Jan 19 2017, 11:00 PM Post #31
Posts: 7,931 Group: GTFO Member #6,380 Joined: June 20, 2011 Country United States Favourite Anime here comes What Browser do you use? o shit waddup! Favourite Manga dat boi	Steve Jan 19 2017, 10:55 PM Overly Facetious Goblin Jan 19 2017, 10:45 PM 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? 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? So because the majority do not actively oppose these issues, we should just roll over on our backs and agree with you about animal cloning? Explain to me how that makes sense. "Not even 1% take action" is a pretty bold claim considering there are hundreds of animal rights organizations, millions of animal rights activists, and a large amount of vegetarians and vegans living on this planet. Animal testing is a thing, but animal rights groups have attempted to make it more humane. Changes have been implemented, but obviously the entire practice can't magically change over night. It's still something that's being worked on. You making this claim based on a large percentage of people believing one thing is a fallacy in and of itself.



+ Steve	Jan 19 2017, 11:12 PM Post #32
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Quote: So because the majority do not actively oppose these issues, we should just roll over on our backs and agree with you about animal cloning? Explain to me how that makes sense. Explain to me where I said that? All I was saying there is that it's hardly an assumption to say most people don't bother doing anything about animal rights at all. There were apparently 375 million vegetarians worldwide in 2015 according to Google, a not insignificant number but it'd be ridiculous to claim they all fight for animal rights, wouldn't it? Which means most of the world, by far, continues to consume animal products and not really do anything to change how we operate on that. Obviously generalizing here but all we can be is general when talking about this amount of people. I pick out vegetarians here because I doubt there are many animal rights activists that sit outside slaughterhouses trying to get them shut down who then go home to eat a big pile of meat potentially from said slaughterhouse. Or use products from an animal testing lab they were vandalising. Obviously meat eating and caring about animal rights aren't mutually exclusive but I'm sure you'll agree most people who eat meat aren't likely to be major activists, except to testing since that seems to be considered more atrocious/unnecessary. Like I said, all we can be is general unless you can point me to a resource that explains exactly how many people do this and that. Hardly makes it a fallacy when it's not even possible to be exact, I don't have the time to go survey every single human to meet the needs of what you consider to be sufficient, sorry.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


~~Doggo Champion 2k17~~	Jan 19 2017, 11:18 PM Post #33
Posts: 7,931 Group: GTFO Member #6,380 Joined: June 20, 2011 Country United States Favourite Anime here comes What Browser do you use? o shit waddup! Favourite Manga dat boi	Quote: There were apparently 375 million vegetarians worldwide in 2015 according to Google, a not insignificant number but it'd be ridiculous to claim they all fight for animal rights, wouldn't it? Why exactly would that be ridiculous? Quote: Which means most of the world, by far, continues to consume animal products and not really do anything to change how we operate on that. And that's a problem too, I'm afraid. The rest of your post is much of the same, but what exactly are you arguing at this point? You argue that cloning is a good idea because the majority of people don't seem to care about animals anyway, so how is that not a fallacious argument? How does that argument even make any sense? Why is cloning such a necessary evil to you? I stated earlier that I would be for cloning if it were done ethically, but I highly doubt that would be the case. Humans have always used animals for their own selfish gain, and that is a problem, which is why many of us disagree with cloning in this thread.



+ Sandy Shore	Jan 19 2017, 11:20 PM Post #34
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	It's a shame OFG's nice and concise post just now wasn't enough. I'll pointlessly try and break it down some, with appropriate comparisons. Steve, your argument doesn't just sound like "there's suffering going on in the world already, so it doesn't hurt to add to it", that's exactly what your argument is. Your elaborations have done nothing to change that. People being lazy/not caring enough, if at all/being selfish/being in the majority ≠ ethical. To think as such is absurd and fallacious. Just as absurd as you saying that "bad things happen to them, so let's do more bad things to them!" Quote: 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, Why is slavery still a thing in the third world? Why is prostitution, labour, and other abuses involving children still a thing? Why is starvation and poverty still a thing? All largely ignored. Are these things therefore ethical? Should people just be allowed to start cutting up children because abuses involving them already go on in the world, and we obviously don't care seeing as it still goes on in horrifying number? It's illegal to just go and free a load of animals, I'm sure you're aware, as it would have been illegal to free a bunch of slaves. People generally don't like breaking the law - that's up to the brave few radicals. Or, possibly the stupid few. Even if people are unconcerned with the law, they're often too lazy or too comfortable to go and do something about it. It doesn't make it right. It would seem whenever polled, the majority of people are against all forms of animal testing, but that doesn't stop them from being lazy and selfish, and that doesn't mean it is therefore ethical. People can recognise something is wrong, but, not only fail to stop it, but continue to do it themselves, whilst acknowledging it's wrong. All these problems are independent of the argument itself. Quote: You say that like it's not common knowledge that animals are tortured and tested on constantly. You say it like it's not. Quote: 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. So, provided someone benefits from raping someone else, and finds it in someway fascinating, it's not as bad? Acceptable, even, you'd say? Quote: 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. Regarding this in particular, most people are under the mass delusion that this s*** is somehow necessary. Like, water necessary. And even those that aren't are addicted, and lack the will-power or resolve to give it up, or simply struggling to do so. This does nothing to the argument itself, it only illustrates our inherent selfishness. Giving up alone requires time and effort, and often involves conflict from other delusionals or people trying to defend their own cruelty, even if you're not outspoken on the matter. You simply don't understand how it's not an issue that can be resolved with a click of the fingers, Steve, yet you're constantly the most vocal advocate for the mistreatment of animals. Your argument of "why not" isn't simply a non-argument, but a borderline psychotic outlook. "Why not (insert any other atrocity here)?" I can't be bothered with your latest post, I'm afraid.



+ Steve	Jan 19 2017, 11:36 PM Post #35
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Overly Facetious Goblin Jan 19 2017, 11:18 PM I stated earlier that I would be for cloning if it were done ethically, but I highly doubt that would be the case. Humans have always used animals for their own selfish gain, and that is a problem, which is why many of us disagree with cloning in this thread. Quote: Why exactly would that be ridiculous? If 375 million people, many of whom would be children, some of whom may not eat meat for health reasons and others who might not even care about animal rights, were all fighting for animal rights...I think we'd know. Quote: The rest of your post is much of the same, but what exactly are you arguing at this point? You argue that cloning is a good idea because the majority of people don't seem to care about animals anyway, so how is that not a fallacious argument? How does that argument even make any sense? Why is cloning such a necessary evil to you? My argument has never been that it's a particularly necessary evil, just that it's not any more evil than things most people don't do much to stop. We don't have countries full of people going over to Muslim countries to end Halal slaughter for good, many voice displeasure of it but that's about it, other than people trying to stop it happening in their own country like here in the UK but a lot of that is general hatred of Muslims "taking over" Every practice which causes animal suffering could be stopped if most people were bothered enough to do something more than rant on the internet about it. Like I said, hardly anyone takes action, compared to the amount that don't at least. I don't see why we should refuse to gain from cloning because like maybe 3% of the worlds population disagrees with it. (375 mil rounded down to 350 is 5%, take away 2% to account for an amount of people who might not be bothered about animal rights anyway, general number just for perspective, have 5% if you want, fight me) As far as I'm concerned it's not any less ethical than the meat industry which most people let happen the way it does and certainly more ethical than some experiments that have been done and are currently done.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


Dankness Lava	Jan 19 2017, 11:45 PM Post #36
Dankness Forever Posts: 6,348 Group: Tha Dankness Member #9,197 Joined: March 16, 2013 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Hajime no Ippo What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga One Piece	I see no reason to bring them back.



+ Sandy Shore	Jan 19 2017, 11:58 PM Post #37
Posts: 1,860 Group: Elite Member Member #12,337 Joined: May 18, 2015	Steve Every practice which causes animal suffering could be stopped if most people were bothered enough to do something more than rant on the internet about it. Like I said, hardly anyone takes action, compared to the amount that don't at least. Not quite the same proportions, but child abuse. Because, you know, like child abuse? Quote: I don't see why we should refuse to gain from cloning because like maybe 3% of the worlds population disagrees with it. ♪ An appeal to the majority is a fallacy ♫. Sing it with us, Steve. It's already been pointed out now that cloning extinct animals doesn't further you towards that ever important goal of organ-harvest. Interesting is subjective, and possibly the furthest thing from an ethical argument I can think of. The only way I could see it being more interesting than regular cloning is if you're the kind of person that's dazzled by sparkly things. Since the topic was about extinct animals specifically, and "why not?" is a question, not an argument... A question that's been answered, I should add. Edited by Sandy Shore, Jan 19 2017, 11:58 PM.



+ Steve	Jan 20 2017, 12:11 AM Post #38
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Quote: Why is slavery still a thing in the third world? Why is prostitution, labour, and other abuses involving children still a thing? Why is starvation and poverty still a thing? All largely ignored. Are these things therefore ethical? Should people just be allowed to start cutting up children because abuses involving them already go on in the world, and we obviously don't care seeing as it still goes on in horrifying number? Again, when have I said it's ethical? It's to me just not less ethical than things we currently do and things we will go on to do, so that's not any reason to not clone anything. If we were to go by how many peoples feeling might be hurt by animal testing we'd all have died to disease long ago. Quote: Steve, yet you're constantly the most vocal advocate for the mistreatment of animals. In your opinion. I've stated many times how I'd like for the way the meat industry works to be changed, whether or not they get killed and eaten at all being mistreatment is your opinion. Quote: Your argument of "why not" isn't simply a non-argument, but a borderline psychotic outlook. "Why not (insert any other atrocity here)?" Psychotic? It's psychotic to approve of the gain of useful knowledge? Is it psychotic to cure rats of diseases we give them in order to figure out a cure for humans? Or is that necessary because people were dying? I'd be interested to see what you say there considering you recognize how selfish people are, justified selfishness? I would say in that case it'd be psychotic to let our species die because some horrible disease grew prevalent. What about if it's to cure something that isn't particularly lethal but a big problem, like arthritis, is that psychotic? When is it okay and when is it not? How do you deem what knowledge is going to be useful enough to cost lives? Consult the scale of suffering as decided by whatever an amount of people? Since we can't test on humans for dumb reasons...even if we're going to pump chemicals in to them so they die anyway. Also just throwing this out there as a less yawn worthy point of discussion, if the world truly is heading for another ice age like many scientists theorize, would it not be worthwhile to ensure that something other than humans survive it? As in cloned animals that can survive an ice age just fin as in this hypothetical we've perfected the science or near enough. I'm sure we'll be relatively okay in bunkers or orbit but should we just let everything else die because that's what happened? I don't find "nature did it" to be a good reason to just let Earth life almost die off entirely. That just sounds sad. We'll need tauntauns to get around, maybe they're tasty too.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


Dingo	Jan 20 2017, 12:39 AM Post #39
Posts: 557 Group: Orangutan Member #9,745 Joined: July 13, 2013 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Dragonball What Browser do you use? Chrome	I had a dream last night where I was hunting extinct animals and when I woke up I realized that the solution to this problem is virtual reality. Once we perfect VR we can bring back extinct animals in a virtual environment and fulfill whatever desires we have to see/interact with them without causing any actual suffering. Edited by Dingo, Jan 20 2017, 12:40 AM.
	Wisdom Wisdom Pack 🐺🐕🦊🐩🐶


+ Steve	Jan 20 2017, 12:49 AM Post #40
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	I vote time travel because it'd be funny to mess up history. I kid. Going back to less seriousness I think it should be acceptable to bring back necessary species for controlling overpopulation if we can't do it ourselves without being massively disruptive. Like if wildebeest were to greatly overpopulate once more Africa could definitely do with more predators to trim the numbers down. Rather than humans flying in and shooting millions of them, better to have animals maintain the population. Guess we could just breed more lions and whatnot but hey, they might go extinct too so they could count. There are only 20,000 or so right now, definitely not enough to tackle huge herds of wildebeest and other critters that trample the land considering they number in the millions.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


~~Doggo Champion 2k17~~	Jan 20 2017, 01:03 AM Post #41
Posts: 7,931 Group: GTFO Member #6,380 Joined: June 20, 2011 Country United States Favourite Anime here comes What Browser do you use? o shit waddup! Favourite Manga dat boi	Yeah, because introducing an extinct species of predator to hunt an overpopulated species sounds like the most logical solution to the problem.



DrewHak	Jan 20 2017, 01:33 AM Post #42
The Jew Posts: 166 Group: Admiral Member #9,701 Joined: July 3, 2013 Gender Not Specified Country Chile Favourite Anime Dragon Ball Z What Browser do you use? Chrome Favourite Manga Naruto	Overly Facetious Goblin Jan 20 2017, 01:03 AM Yeah, because introducing an extinct species of predator to hunt an overpopulated species sounds like the most logical solution to the problem. That would simply lead to one species replacing the other, would it not?
	Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder! Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have a love of humanity in your hearts! You don't hate!


+ Steve	Jan 20 2017, 01:46 AM Post #43
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Overly Facetious Goblin Jan 20 2017, 01:03 AM Yeah, because introducing an extinct species of predator to hunt an overpopulated species sounds like the most logical solution to the problem. How is it not? It's better than bombing or shooting them all or infecting them with a disease. Less disruptive and lets the ecosystem maintain itself without further human intervention. Least we could do considering half the time we are the reason animals overpopulate, as we reduce the number of predators out there greatly. The only real negatives would be if the animals were completely insane and murdered everything but that's hardly likely.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


Dingo	Jan 20 2017, 02:46 AM Post #44
Posts: 557 Group: Orangutan Member #9,745 Joined: July 13, 2013 Gender Not Specified Country None Favourite Anime Dragonball What Browser do you use? Chrome	Super Saiyan Bardock Jan 20 2017, 01:33 AM Overly Facetious Goblin Jan 20 2017, 01:03 AM Yeah, because introducing an extinct species of predator to hunt an overpopulated species sounds like the most logical solution to the problem. That would simply lead to one species replacing the other, would it not? Hard to know what would happen but we do have some examples of existing species moving from their ecosystem to another. Results are unpredictable. Copy paste examples Black rats Black rats are so common and widespread that it is easy to forget they are originally native to tropical Asia. They spread to Europe and other regions of the world centuries ago, in a large part by boarding trading ships. They are major pests, and their introduction to a new habitat induces strong competition for resources with other animals, leading to the decline in population (and even extinction) of native species. They are also vectors for diseases affecting humans, such as certain agents of the bubonic plague. Nile perch The Nile Perch is native to the African Afrotropic ecozone, and is one of the largest freshwater fish, reaching 2 meters (approx. 6.6 feet) in length and 200 kilograms (approx. 441 pounds) in weight. It is a fierce predator feeding on fish, including its own species. It was intentionally introduced into Lake Victoria in East Africa, as a source of food, in the 1950s. It has led to the loss of several hundred native species from that lake, and has had severe economic and social impacts — for example by abolishing many local trades relying on other fish species from the lake. Due to the high fat content, nile perches cannot be sun dried and need to be smoked for preservation, putting additional strain on regional forests, already subject to deforestation and soil erosion. Common rabbit Common European rabbits are known for their ability to reproduce at an alarming rate and produce an incredibly high number of offspring. A farmer in Australia brought over 24 rabbits for hunting purposes, but these bred so much that 10 years later, two million rabbits could be removed annually from the environment without affecting the stability of the wild rabbit population. Rabbits are a significant factor in Australia's significant loss of species in the past few decades, and are also responsible for erosion of the top layer of soil, which can take hundreds of years to replace itself. Burmese python Burmese pythons are, as their name suggests, native to Southern and South Eastern Asian tropical and subtropical regions. They were introduced into the wild in Florida by escaping households and zoos, possibly as a result of the 1992 Hurricane Andrew. Their importation into the United States is now banned as of 2012, but there are still over 300,000 pythons present in Southern Florida. They have few predators outside of humans and alligators — which they attack anyway — and prey on a large variety of species, threatening species like birds, coyotes and panthers.
	Wisdom Wisdom Pack 🐺🐕🦊🐩🐶


+ Steve	Jan 20 2017, 03:28 AM Post #45
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season. Posts: 19,471 Group: Legend Member #5,710 Joined: February 7, 2011 Gender Male Country United Kingdom Favourite Anime Hunter x Hunter(2011) What Browser do you use? Mozilla Firefox Favourite Manga Berserk all day erry day	Most of those are vermin or fast breeding animals though, larger creatures are much less dangerous to ecosystems. Rats especially are extremely dangerous as their adaptability is crazy and their numbers multiply ridiculously fast. If lions go extinct bringing them back wouldn't cause that sort of problem, their absence would create many however. Cheetah's are being killed off too. Mostly due to humans and our ever expanding borders as well as poaching. Issues like that are solved by research really. If we cloned a type of tiger to put back in to Africa and it somehow started reproducing at an insane rate we could refrain from reintroducing it. Mistakes have been made but mistakes are there to learn from. Adding small creatures to an ecosystem is asking for a disaster.
	Definitely not a succubus, fear not


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3