Jump to content

De-extinction. What are you thoughts?


Chief D

  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your position?

    • For
      5
    • Against
      6
    • Neutral
      6
    • Doggy
      4


Recommended Posts

I've been reading on NatGeo a lot lately about this topic. At fist I was against it because the de-extinct animal's habitats have changed a lot and their survival is probably impossible. They would only be brought back to life to be on captivity. I mean, it would be cool to see a woolly mammoth for the first time, but honestly, we could use the time and resources for better things.

 

However, being against it means you're acting like the inquisition. Science wants to advance and you're stopping it. Who knows, perhaps these new discoveries can be followed by some other great discoveries. It's also been said that extinct species are thought to have create the ecosystems we destroyed. Grasslands, plains, etc. Some of them would help us against Global Warming (which isn't proven, but I believe it's real). 

 

My position, for now, is that de-extinction should be done after a rigorous study of the ecosystems these animals would be placed in and the consequences. We don't want to introduce more exotic species into some ecosystems as, as we know, it's not good.

 

Links:

 

Species Revival: Should We Bring Back Extinct Animals?

Opinion: The Case for Reviving Extinct Species

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, being against it means you're acting like the inquisition. Science wants to advance and you're stopping it.

 

I'll start off by saying that I'm not well-educated with this topic and currently don't have the time to read the links, but I wanted to address this point.  I'm conflicted about calling (what seems like) science for the sake of science "advancing".  I don't see this issue to be on the same level as stem cell research, vaccines, etc. which have people opposing them.  I don't see any immediate benefits (again, haven't read the article) other than giving the animals another chance at life.  It is directly counter-acting natural selection by injecting the animals back into the ecosystem.  The possible benefits that you proposed (e.g. more discoveries, global warming) need to be compared against the possible negative outcomes, as you mentioned in your opinion (new invasive species, huge costs, etc.).

 

I'd love to see a woolly mammoth during my lifetime, but it has its costs and it isn't my belief that the woolly mammoths are up there somewhere wishing they could be walking the earth again (not implying that was your argument, just saying)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's not much of an opinion

 

At least more of an opinion than what you just posted :D

 

I think it should be done in controlled environments only. A Zoo might be enough for large animals, a sealed laboratory for small things like insects that cannot be easily contained.

 

But even the Mammoth would probably need a sealed environment, because we don't know what kinds of hostile bacteria, viruses and parasites we now have that the animal is not prepared for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least more of an opinion than what you just posted :D

 

Perhaps I could have been more clear that I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I could have been more clear that I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

I meant just that one comment about my comment.

Anyway, did you mean outweigh the costs as in monetary, or as in risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you mean outweigh the costs as in monetary, or as in risk?

 

both, I guess.  it'll be extremely expensive to fund.  If the animal is kept in captivity, I don't see the benefit other than "look everyone, we brought it back, isn't it amazing?" (which it is).  If the animal is released into the wild, the possibilities of it helping the ecosystem are met by the possibilities of it disturbing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even the Mammoth would probably need a sealed environment, because we don't know what kinds of hostile bacteria, viruses and parasites we now have that the animal is not prepared for.

I doubt we're born with bacteria in our systems, the environment provides us with the needed bacteria. These are just suppositions, as I've never read anything about it. I only know the koalas have to eat their mom's shit to get the microorganisms needed in their intestines.

 

both, I guess.  it'll be extremely expensive to fund.  If the animal is kept in captivity, I don't see the benefit other than "look everyone, we brought it back, isn't it amazing?" (which it is).  If the animal is released into the wild, the possibilities of it helping the ecosystem are met by the possibilities of it disturbing it.

I'm sure it will become a business in the end. COME SEE THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it will become a business in the end. COME SEE THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH.

 

Then we'll find a way to pirate and 3d print our own.  They'll go out of business and the woolly mammoths will be forced into manual labor.

 

is that what you want Chief?  Slave Woolies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we'll find a way to pirate and 3d print our own.  They'll go out of business and the woolly mammoths will be forced into manual labor.

 

is that what you want Chief?  Slave Woolies?

You wouldn't download a mammoth, WOULD YOU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be really neat to bring back species. But since climate change have been drastic since the time certain species flourished, there probably have to be kept in specific rooms to even stay alive. We would also have to bring back their prey and plant life of their time  Pump the room with oxygen (oxygen levels have changed and their lungs were adapted for their time) and monitor the humidity level as well as keep the room to a certain temp.  So i don't think we can bring back the dinosaurs, but probably something like the dodo would be easy. 

 

I would really like for the passenger pigeon to be brought back to life, that is one of the saddest extinction stories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be really neat to bring back species. But since climate change have been drastic since the time certain species flourished, there probably have to be kept in specific rooms to even stay alive. We would also have to bring back their prey and plant life of their time  Pump the room with oxygen (oxygen levels have changed and their lungs were adapted for their time) and monitor the humidity level as well as keep the room to a certain temp.  So i don't think we can bring back the dinosaurs, but probably something like the dodo would be easy. 

 

I would really like for the passenger pigeon to be brought back to life, that is one of the saddest extinction stories. 

 

If you read the articles, they mention the dinosaurs are a no go. Their DNA isn't preserved enough to bring them back. Check the album I linked about possible species to be brought back, the dodo is in there. They plan on bringing them back via chickens. As is a hen lays an egg and the offspring is a dodo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both, I guess.  it'll be extremely expensive to fund.  If the animal is kept in captivity, I don't see the benefit other than "look everyone, we brought it back, isn't it amazing?" (which it is).  If the animal is released into the wild, the possibilities of it helping the ecosystem are met by the possibilities of it disturbing it.

 

The benefits are zoological, not just spectacle--instead of guessing at how this animal worked and lived, you can make a copy of it. Obviously scale would prevent things like migration patterns and possibly social behavior from being studied, but one point of paleontology is to learn more about extinct things using highly indirect methods.

 

And before you complain about how expensive science is, consider this: the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a single module of the International Space Station, has cost 1.5 billion USD to date, and it's still not done. The Large Hadron Collider had a budget of 9 billion USD, and it took ten years to make not counting delays. It's also being shut down for two years for upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that selection should run its course. The more natural the selection, the better. For example, pandas are an endangered species. They are clumsy, lazy, gluttoneous, and absolutely adorable. Global warming, loss of habitat due to human interference, pollution, etc, have threatened their existence, causing them to become endangered. Is it a good thing to keep them around? I would argue it is not. Selection selects for what is most "fit" - meaning, what can give rise to the most number of viable offspring, and hence pass its genes onto future generations. Even if we influence selection, there isn't a reason to keep antiquidated species alive anymore. They will be a huge drain on available resources and time, while only providing the benefit of humoring the human sense of pride in "look at these pitiful creatures, since I am clearly superior, I shall save it." The amount of effort and resources allocated to preserving endangered species could be spent in other areas. Also, suppose we "save" an endangered species from going extinct. The gene pool of this species has been drastically reduced, and there will be fewer available genes for selection to work on. Genetic bottlenecking will have reduced the variability of the species so that it is unlikely for the species to maintain survival on its own. We would then have to take care of these species and make sure they don't die off again since we have already devoted so much time and effort in "saving" them. At what limit will we go to protect these unfit species? Eventually it will come a point where nothing can be done to help them since they are so very unfit for the environment, and we can only watch as they die off. Then, all the time and resources invested into this project will have come to no use. Suppose that, instead, we manage to save the species, and they actually manage to adapt to the environment. What is the outcome? Did saving one species from extinction make the environmental pollution go away? Did it make global warming disappear? Did it stop the carbon based fuel situation? Did it cure HIV?

 

Now what about ressurecting species? Just how much resources would it take, and to what end? A vain sense of pride in our ability to exert our dominance on nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you on most points. I was against it when I first started reading basically for your reason. However, in this article, you can read some possible good outcomes of this.

 

Useful science will also emerge. Close examination of the genomes of extinct species can tell us much about what made them vulnerable in the first place. Were they in a bottleneck with too little genetic variability? How were they different from close relatives that survived? Living specimens will reveal even more.

Techniques being developed for de-extinction will also be directly applicable to living species that are close to extinction. Tiny populations can have their genetic variability restored. A species with a genetic Achilles' heel might be totally cured with an adjustment introduced through cloning.

For instance, the transmissible cancer on the faces of Tasmanian devils is thought to be caused by a single gene. That gene can be silenced in a generation of the animals released to the wild. The cancer would disappear in the wild soon after, because the immune animals won't transmit it, and animals with the immunity will out-reproduce the susceptible until the entire population is immune.

 

I understand why you mean about natural selection and endangered species, but some predators who control the populations on many ecosystems are endangered because of poachers. If they become extinct, the primary consumers' population of said ecosystem would increase wildly. I'm all for preserving IMPORTANT endangered species, and this might help.

 

I agree with you about the pandas being useless, but I've heard two theories about it. One is, they are useless and all the money people donate for their preservation is a waste, and the other one is that the money actually goes to other places. They use the panda to get donations for more important ends. No idea whichends, though.

 

Also, what I was referring about fighting Global Warming is that same article here:

 

Some extinct species were important "keystones" in their region. Restoring them would help restore a great deal of ecological richness.

Woolly mammoths, for instance, were the dominant herbivore of the "mammoth steppe" in the far north, once the largest biome on Earth. In their absence, the grasslands they helped sustain were replaced by species-poor tundra and boreal forest. Their return to the north would bring back carbon-fixing grass and reduce greenhouse-gas-releasing tundra. Similarly, the European aurochs(extinct since 1627) helped to keep forests across all of Europe and Asia mixed with biodiverse meadows and grasslands.

 

There are two ways to go from here, in my opinion:

 

  1. Go on, the planet won't be affected, but the biosphere will. In the end, even if humanity disappears, new ecosystems will arise.
  2. Try and make it better. If we can, why not do it? If we fail, is it a different outcome than the first one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what about ressurecting species? Just how much resources would it take, and to what end? A vain sense of pride in our ability to exert our dominance on nature?

 

The implications of extinction are bigger than just guilt or pride: every species is unique, and by studying them we expand our knowledge of the world.

 

Giant pandas may be fat jerks, but they're carnivorans who eat 99 percent bamboo. The cultural and scientific significance of any given species is never zero, regardless of how "useless" they may seem.

 

You may say the costs outweigh the benefits, but, as I showed above, science puts a high premium on knowledge, especially knowledge that is considered irreplaceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implications of extinction are bigger than just guilt or pride: every species is unique, and by studying them we expand our knowledge of the world.

 

Giant pandas may be fat jerks, but they're carnivorans who eat 99 percent bamboo. The cultural and scientific significance of any given species is never zero, regardless of how "useless" they may seem.

 

You may say the costs outweigh the benefits, but, as I showed above, science puts a high premium on knowledge, especially knowledge that is considered irreplaceable.

I tend to be a practical person, and see things in a pragmatic perspective. By the "every species is unique" argument, every individual is also unique. Every human has a unique genome which can be mapped out and studied. Why don't we study every person from the moment he is born? It is because this would be impractical. Expanding knowledge of the world sounds like a great idea: why not start by expanding knowledge on how to stop HIV, as opposed to how endangered animals live?

 

Such discovery-driven research on Pandas and other species don't stand out to me as useful in the face of other important tasks. While there is nothing wrong with the persuit of knowledge, resources in our world are always finite, and allocation of resources is very important. Say that we manage to find out why pandas eat bamboo, what has this accomplished? We have known for many centuries that cows eat grass, and it is bacteria in their gut which allows them to digest cellulose. Thus far we have failed to implement such bacteria into other living organisms, like ourselves, so that we too may be able to eat grass. Let us assume that we even manage to find out why Pandas are able to digest bamboo, and that we can use this in our own systems. Such an occurance would not be natural, and a procedure to place bamboo-eating bacteria in our guts would be costly. So now the rich are able to eat bamboo for a living, while the poor still starve.

 

The costs greatly outweigh the benefits. Suppose you have a large chunk of money. Two scientists come in, and propose an idea for you to fund. One proposal is that an experimental drug to fight cancer has been developed, but needs more refining. The other proposal is to save manatees and hope to learn something from their activities. What is the logical choice of research to fund? You can argue to fund the manatee research since, maybe, you happen to love manatees. What if the government had to decide how to allocate federal tax money into research? They will undoubtedly choose to put more money into cancer research than studying manatees. Some scientists are optismitic that they can discover something new in research, but if you count how much research is actually successful, versus how much research results in failure, the numbers are striking. Scientists usually have a desire for new knowledge, but there are many more important areas of research available. First we must solve our own problems, then we can begin doing research into areas of curiosity.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you on most points. I was against it when I first started reading basically for your reason. However, in this article, you can read some possible good outcomes of this.

 

 

I

understand why you mean about natural selection and endangered species,

but some predators who control the populations on many ecosystems are

endangered because of poachers. If they become extinct, the primary

consumers' population of said ecosystem would increase wildly. I'm all

for preserving IMPORTANT endangered species, and this might help.

 

I

agree with you about the pandas being useless, but I've heard two

theories about it. One is, they are useless and all the money people

donate for their preservation is a waste, and the other one is that the

money actually goes to other places. They use the panda to get donations

for more important ends. No idea whichends, though.

 

Also, what I was referring about fighting Global Warming is that same article here:

 

 

There are two ways to go from here, in my opinion:

 

  1. Go on, the planet won't be affected, but the biosphere will. In the end, even if humanity disappears, new ecosystems will arise.
  2. Try and make it better. If we can, why not do it? If we fail, is it a different outcome than the first one?

The article proposes "techniques" for de-extinction and reintroduction of genetic variability. What is the practicality of doing this? How viable is it to introduce variation into a small, dying community? I can tell you from first-hand experience that this is absurdly difficult. I can think of many ways to do something like this, but (unless scientists have made a new discovery that I am completely unaware of) the methods of doing so are not cost effective. In regard to global warming article, maybe reintroducing them would have a small positive impact. Still does not target the root cause of global warming, but only delays its effects. Maybe a diversion can give us time to solve the other issues, but I think a more direct approach is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many words

 

That's a completely legitimate and valid set of points. There's a few logical missteps in it though: Firstly, in your hypothetical about manatees versus cancer medication, you're assuming that the projects are equally expensive, which is highly unlikely. The US Government can and does spend a lot of money researching everything from energy use to traffic signs, and they also allocate funds to wildlife preservation, parks, and many other things that are not necessarily "useful" or "important"--you're implying that we can't do both.

 

Secondly, even if you don't think the end result is useful, de-extinction has merit as a way to practice and refine other technologies. By bringing a species back, sure you get the species, but you also refine a process which requires many sub-fields and processes and specialized knowledge. Practice makes perfect, and science is no different. Advancing the field can be just as important a goal as whatever end-product research creates--that's how science works.

 

I will concede that the information obtained by wildlife research may not be useful to common people for eons (I'll be an optimist and say that someday the singularity will mean we can transplant grass-bacteria), but researching manatees doesn't advance the field in the same way that de-extinction might. Sure, you could train scientists with manatees, but it's apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a completely legitimate and valid set of points. There's a few logical missteps in it though: Firstly, in your hypothetical about manatees versus cancer medication, you're assuming that the projects are equally expensive, which is highly unlikely. The US Government can and does spend a lot of money researching everything from energy use to traffic signs, and they also allocate funds to wildlife preservation, parks, and many other things that are not necessarily "useful" or "important"--you're implying that we can't do both.

 

Secondly, even if you don't think the end result is useful, de-extinction has merit as a way to practice and refine other technologies. By bringing a species back, sure you get the species, but you also refine a process which requires many sub-fields and processes and specialized knowledge. Practice makes perfect, and science is no different. Advancing the field can be just as important a goal as whatever end-product research creates--that's how science works.

 

I will concede that the information obtained by wildlife research may not be useful to common people for eons (I'll be an optimist and say that someday the singularity will mean we can transplant grass-bacteria), but researching manatees doesn't advance the field in the same way that de-extinction might. Sure, you could train scientists with manatees, but it's apples and oranges.

When parties ask for funding, the funding usually isn't for the entire project. It's usually for a specific amount of money. I should have been more clearn: both parties ask for the same amount of money for research into their respective areas. When government makes decisions on allocation, they have a pre-set budget in which they divvy out (concept of earmarking).

 

Of course the government can allocate funds to wildlife preservation, parks, etc. But the question is, should they? What is does not imply it ought to be, and maybe current effors on preservation aren't nearly as useful as imagined. While I'm not arguing for the complete removal of preservation, I think there needs to be careful decisions to not waste resources on paths which are fruitless. There has to be an assessment of practicality.

 

For the matter of de-extinction as a method to practice other technologies, I agree it can give rise to new fields. The human genome project is an example of a discovery-driven research which yielded many new areas of research and technologies. However, the HGP wasn't well liked with the public, and there was much controversy over the research. Why spend federal money on something that may (or may not) yield results? We are happy, after the fact, that it allowed for many new possibilities. What would have happened if the research led to nothing? The millions of dollars invested, which could have been used elsewhere, would have been lost. I cannot claim to be able to foresee what the outcome of de-extinction research will do, or what it may lead to. But a risk-reward assessment leads me to think the risks are greater than rewards. Even introducing species from one environment into another can have a negative effect. Japanese stink bugs are an invasive species, and they've been getting more and more common in the states. Originally from Asia, the introduction of them to the US has caused them to reproduce and rapidly spread. While they're not poisonous or carry disease, they're annoying. Another example is the introduction of cane toads to Australia. Originally intended to eat the beetles, cane toads have since spread and become a hazard to many native organisms, since they are highly poisonous.

 

In the end, while de-extinction may have positive effects, if the research is to be successful and have a positive effect, it needs to be carefully planned and controlled. No doubt this will be costly, and perhaps the cost will yield great rewards. Perhaps they will not... Human nature is to take risks on potential gains, but be conservative on potential loss. Since so many things can go wrong, until a thorough risk assessment is completed, I can't say I am for the de-extinction process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we bring back unicorns and pegasi? I would like to have Rainbow Dash as a pet.

 

Go away, ponyfag.

 

------

 

The first part of your post remineded me of this: 

 

yivvO.jpg

 

Most of the knowledge gained by science is for human benefits, but not all. There are MANY human problems, but science expands beyond that. Why do we care about space? Why did we go to the moon? It has no benefit for us. If we plan on using it to travel and live on other planets, then, are we supposing this planet will be uninhabitable? 

 

Why would we focus only on resolving the cancer or HIV problem when we have enough to do the three of them? (Honestly, I believe the cure for cancer has already been found, but third parties who make profit from cancer fucked up their release).

 

 

About your second point, I just read this other article before writing this: Reinventing the Mammoth

Reintroducing them into the wild is a major topic. As I stated, only if enough research is done, and it shows a positive outcome, I would support this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first part of your post remineded me of this: (picture here)

 

Most of the knowledge gained by science is for human benefits, but not all. There are MANY human problems, but science expands beyond that. Why do we care about space? Why did we go to the moon? It has no benefit for us. If we plan on using it to travel and live on other planets, then, are we supposing this planet will be uninhabitable? 

 

Why would we focus only on resolving the cancer or HIV problem when we have enough to do the three of them? (Honestly, I believe the cure for cancer has already been found, but third parties who make profit from cancer fucked up their release).

 

 

About your second point, I just read this other article before writing this: Reinventing the Mammoth

Reintroducing them into the wild is a major topic. As I stated, only if enough research is done, and it shows a positive outcome, I would support this idea.

Why did we go to the moon indeed... Is it not our hubris? From pre-landing studies, they knew that there was no life on the moon. They hypothesized that gravity would be lower there. They know there is no air, no atmosphere, and moon dust. The Soviets created a satellite, and planned to send people to the moon. The US denied them by going to the moon first. The moon landing by the US crew demonstrated the US's technical superority and technology, and was deemed "necessary for national security."

 

"Why would we focus on resolving cancer or HIV, when we have enough to do all three? Enough is subjective. Just what is enough? Is finding a way to slow cancer, or using chemotherapy to stop it, a good enough solution? Is using an anti-HIV cocktail of drugs to stop the effects of it a good enough solution? Is saving manatees from dying out, but not doing anything about why they are dying, a good enough solution? I don't believe a surefire cancer cure has been found, but there are methods of dealing with it, all of which are costly. Is this good enough? What if we can make cancer cures more reliable and more affordable? We never have enough resources, and there is always a struggle for allocation of resources. Priority for allocation should lie in areas of definite research, and not in hypothetical fields.

 

Assuming infinite resources, it would surely be interesting to see how de-extinction effects the environment, and how the organisms will survive now. It is a fascinating topic, but impractical. Practicality is more important than possibility; it may be possible to individually remove every HIV gene from a human's genome, but that would be very impractical. It may be possible to save pandas, introduce genetic variation, allow them to survive in the wild, and give them a competitive edge, but it is also impractical. One may counter this by saying, "practicality is subjective." There are many definitions of practicality: what is most practical may be what gives the greatest short-term benefits, or gives the greatest long-term benefits. Practical may mean solving only our current problems, and dealing with what lies in the future when it arrives, or it may mean solving problems so that the future is less filled with problems. For me, practical means what most efficiently causes the most forseeable long-term well being for humans. Finding an affordable cure for cancer or HIV will allow many patients now and in the future to survive, but it might make the population crisis even worse or lead to other diseases. Ressurecting a mammoth may give us a better understanding for their habitat, ecology, behaviors, etc, but there are many compounding factors and variables that make it difficult to predict an outcome. For now, de-extinction research is fulfillment of idle curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...