The Instigator
rpopcorn6
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Figeon
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Figeon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 81506
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

rpopcorn6

Pro

This debate is about the topic of bringing extinct animals back to life

THIS IS A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE STYLE

Say I accept on The current round than we will start

(Rounds)
First-List and bring up arguments
Sec-refute, and bring up arguements
Thir-Refute and support arguements
Figeon

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
rpopcorn6

Pro

The world is getting hotter, outbreaks and pandemics have happened in the last few years, decreasing amount of water. Here today, we are still plagued with many problems around here, but let's focus on something we are discussing today. The argument of bringing extinct animals back to life. Hi my name is Jonathan Do, and I strongly believe that a select few animals should be brought back to life through the scientifically-proven process of cloning for the purpose of curing a few current problems around the world. One of the few problems would be global warming and enviromental crisis. Before I go on to my topics, I would like to refute some of my opponents arguments as well as supporting my teams. Global warming, some see it as a natural process, some think it is not real, but many others believes that it is a threat to earth. According to skeptical science .com, winner of the Eureka prize in the advancement of climate change knowledge, If the earth continues to heat up, ice caps will melt, due to the heat, wars will break out for disputes over water, food, and necessary needs in order to survive. To solve this problem, you can bring back the wooly mammoth that we humans endangered this animal and drove it to extinction. The reason for bringing it back is because that it's waste, can be used to lower the earth's temperature. According to Korea's Sooam Biotech Research and Russia's North Eastern Federal university, the mammoths poop would would bury carbon rich soil and after a few layers, it will successfully remove many carbon particles in the atmosphere. The impact of this will be a less warm earth, ice caps stay the same, and environments will be saved. Then goes to the issues of environmental crises. When the tasmanian tiger went "extinct" , it has triggered a environmental crises in australia. 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. The impact of this is that the biodiversity problem of australia will be solved. and the world will have one more species that has been given justice to. In the end, I believe that prop has won this argument due sheer weight of benefits versus the lesser load of consequences.

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
Figeon

Con

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. [1] 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 [2], 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.

[1] http://www.endangeredearth.com...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rpopcorn6

Pro

rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
Figeon

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
rpopcorn6

Pro

rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
Figeon

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Figeon 1 year ago
Figeon
Because they extract the DNA from the specimen itself so it's completely the same as the original. Unless they used a method I'm unfamiliar with.
Posted by crossbones 1 year ago
crossbones
I heard that researchers knew the genome sequencing of some ancient animals and "may" bring back those animals. However, how can we sure it is 100% original?
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Do you mean extinct animals in general or a specific animal? If you mean in general, it is not even possible for most animals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
rpopcorn6FigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: no rebuttal provided