Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning
Debate Rounds (4)
THIS IS A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE STYLE
Say I accept on The current round than we will start
First-List and bring up arguments
Sec-refute, and bring up arguements
Thir-Refute and support arguements
Secondly, Our technology has improved. Since the last decades, our technology has improved, benefited, and helped mankind stay satisfied. This shows that it is possible to finish the research and develop the process in order to bring back animals.
Thanks Vote For My Side
I would like to thank my opponent for bringing up this debate!
As agreed in round 1, I will only be posting my arguments this round.
Argument 1: Unknown Pathogens
Bringing back old extinct animals could possibly enter pathogens into the environment. Retroviruses in the animal's genomes may be hidden without anyone knowing until it is too late. These animals have been out of the cycle of natural selection for hundreds and even thousands of years which means we would be completely unprepared if a disease caught us unaware.
Argument 2: Current Preservation
There are currently 16,306 endangered species in the world.  It's much more important to preserve the current endangered species than to worry about introducing new ones because it would continue the food chain and natural section already going on. Spending millions of dollars to reintroduce an extinct species to the environment is completely illogical when hundreds of species would be going extinct at the same time.
Argument 3: Keeping the Current Food Chain Balanced
Introducing a new species would completely mess up the food chain if placed in the wild. For exapmle, existing species may go extinct if a predator is brought back from extinction and put into the wild. In addition, new de-extinct animals may be invasive and crowd out other existing animals.
Extinct animals went extinct for a reason: that is the whole premise of natual selection. Putting them back into the ecosystem would likely render them extinct again or else they would have never gone extinct in the first place.
Argument 4: Practicality
As said in previous arguments, why save extinct animals when there are already thousands of endangered species? Putting money to better use in ecosystem preservation or climate change research would both benefit all current species as well as humans.
Cloned animals have greatly shortened lifespans , and usually have other health issues which means they might not reach a reproductive age. If they can't reproduce a large genetic diversity isn't achieveable.
Even assuming a large enough gene pool for the animals are reached, an appropriate environment for them would be an intensely difficult and costly task. The money used could be much more pratical in other areas.
rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited this round but I will post my rebuttals as agreed in the first round.
Rebuttal 1: "To solve this problem, you can bring back the wooly mammoth that we humans endangered this animal and drove it to extinction."
Firstly, I was unable to find the research you talk about so you may want to post your sources. Even if this theory that mammoth poop can reverse climate change works, it would be impossible to bring enough mammoths back to create enough dung to signifigantly reduce climate change. In my previous arguments, I also mentioned in my arguments that cloned animals don't have as long of lifespans so the they wouldn't be able to produce much dung at all, and they wouldn't live long enough to reproduce creating genetic diversity and a large enough population.
Rebuttal 2: "According to mit.edu, if you bring back the tasmanian tiger along with a few other species, you can restore the biodiversity of australia's increasing amount of endangered animals."
Again we have the same issue here. The animals wouldn't have a long enough of a lifespan to reproduce in order to create a large population for biodiversity. Secondly, it's impractical to bring back extinct animals to create biodiversidy when we can preserve the current biodiversity by not letting our current species go extinct.
Rebuttal 3: "Secondly, Our technology has improved. Since the last decades, our technology has improved, benefited, and helped mankind stay satisfied. This shows that it is possible to finish the research and develop the process in order to bring back animals."
This argument is irrelevant because we are not arguing if it is possible to bring back extinct animals with our current technology, we are arguing if we SHOULD bring back animals via cloning.
Over to my opponent now.
rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
It's quite disappointing my opponent forfeited all rounds after round 2, but I thank him/her for bringing up the debate.
Unknown Pathogens, the current need to preserve our existing biodiversity, keeping the current food chain balanced, and the unpractical efforts of de-extinction are all reasons why we should not bring back extinct animals. The cons of bringing back extinct animals via cloning enormously outweigh the benefits. Vote Con please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: no rebuttal provided
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.