Should Extinct Species be Cloned?

[robbied196]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/cloned-species/mueller-text

 

[SonOfSparda]

I'm not sure about that, they lived in a completely different habitat then they would now and without the proper evolution they would have gone through to adapt to new environments might actually fuck them up instead.

 

[Embryoyo]

I'm not sure about that, they lived in a completely different habitat then they would now and without the proper evolution they would have gone through to adapt to new environments might actually fuck them up instead.

I agree with this :thumbsup:

 

[om3ga]

No.

 

[Boobinator]

For captivity and reserach, yes.

For reintroduction in nature, it depends.

 

[mrtrebus]

Fuck yeah! Bring back unicorns, griffins & minotaurs!!

 

[thebear247]

no it inst wise to mess with mother nature and play god

 

[Hot Mega]

No. The threat of incurable disease or plague returning with them is too great IMO. We have a hard enough time with the species that have not gone extinct.

 

[mrtrebus]

no it inst wise to mess with mother nature and play god

We've been doing that for hundreds of years. For example look at all the different types of dogs that have been created through selective breeding that would not have occurred naturally.

 

[Hot Mega]

For example look at all the different types of dogs that have been created through selective breeding that would not have occurred naturally.

That's not bringing back extinct species and that process is still a product of practical evolution.

 

[laxe]

Bring back the witches so they do magic and cure some diseases.

 

[mrtrebus]

That's not bringing back extinct species and that process is still a product of practical evolution.

True but it is 'playing god'.

 

[Fairchild]

I say, If we killed them, we should bring them back. So Dodo birds and Mammoths, yes! Dinosaurs, no.

EDIT: And about "playing god": wouldn´t it at least be playing god in a good way, if we were to resurrect a species that is now dead because of our ancestors?

 

[Hot Mega]

True but it is 'playing god'.

Hmmm, I'm trying to figure out if interbreeding of dog with other dogs and cats with other cats is more analogous to interracial reproduction (in that case we're playing God too) as both can and do occur naturally. Or is it more analogous to interbreeding species like tigers with lions (which would seem a little more unnatural IMO).

 

[bustybbwlover]

maybe when we learn to alter dna so we don't end up with a bunch of inbred creatures

 

[anairhead999]

i think some species might be better off extinct like dinosaurs

 

[mrtrebus]

Hmmm, I'm trying to figure out if interbreeding of dog with other dogs and cats with other cats is more analogous to interracial reproduction (in that case we're playing God too) as both can and do occur naturally. Or is it more analogous to interbreeding species like tigers with lions (which would seem a little more unnatural IMO).

I think there is a difference between humans breeding with other humans of a different ethnic group as opposed to humans selectively breeding different dogs in order to obtain specific genetic traits in the offspring. That is playing god.

Anyway back to the topic, yes let’s get cloning! But make them better, a dodo that is not quite so stupid for example.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think there is a difference between humans breeding with other humans of a different ethnic group as opposed to humans selectively breeding different dogs in order to obtain specific genetic traits in the offspring. That is playing god.

Anyway back to the topic, yes let’s get cloning! But make them better, a dodo that is not quite so stupid for example.

I'm struggling to find the consistency between the two positions you suggest.

You think selectively breeding different dogs (for example) for specific traits (even though any such breeding is still a crap shoot as to what traits you get) is an act reserved only for God.

However, cloning a Dodo and making it "better" is not playing God under the same ethics??

BTW, humans breed for specific traits in their progeny all the time.

 

[mrtrebus]

I'm struggling to find the consistency between the two positions you suggest.

You think selectively breeding different dogs (for example) for specific traits (even though any such breeding is still a crap shoot as to what traits you get) is an act reserved only for God.

However, cloning a Dodo and making it "better" is not playing God under the same ethics??

BTW, humans breed for specific traits in their progeny all the time.

?
I haven't made any comment about whether cloning is or isn't playing god. I was merely stating that the playing god argument doesn't hold water for me as a valid reason.

But yes, humans do breed for specific traits, but when it comes to selective breeding of dogs they themselves are not part of the decision process, an outside force is, us, for our own gain not the dogs.

 

[Hot Mega]

?
I haven't made any comment about whether cloning is or isn't playing god. I was merely stating that the playing god argument doesn't hold water for me as a valid reason.

But yes, humans do breed for specific traits, but when it comes to selective breeding of dogs they themselves are not part of the decision process, an outside force is, us, for our own gain not the dogs.

I'm saying that it sounds like you're decrying the act of playing God and using the example of breeding dogs for specific traits. I just don't see how that's different from cloning a Dodo and assigning or removing specific traits.

Not a big deal....just seems a little inconsistent IMO.