Is de-extinction a good idea?

Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

They went extinct for a reason. They'll probably just go extinct again unless a substantial amount of resources are wasted to protect them.

At 7/19/2013 2:00:01 PM, Quan wrote:
They went extinct for a reason. They'll probably just go extinct again unless a substantial amount of resources are wasted to protect them.

That is a very good point. Short and perfect.

I think we should bring back dinosaurs and things, just because.

At 7/19/2013 2:00:01 PM, Quan wrote:
They went extinct for a reason. They'll probably just go extinct again unless a substantial amount of resources are wasted to protect them.

But...By that same logic, we shouldn't do anything to protect animals on the verge of extinction either. And what if, as is the case for many of these animals, they were made extinct due to human action? It often doesn't cost to just say "don't hunt this animal."

At 7/19/2013 2:45:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I think we should bring back dinosaurs and things, just because.

==It depends on which animal==
I think it depends on the circumstances under which the animal became extinct. For example, bringing back animals like the gastric- brooding frog[http://www.stuff.co.nz...], that most likely died out due to habitat loss and pollution caused by humans, I think, is a reasonable application of the technology. So I think it is a good thing for humans to give life back to animals that became extinct because of human assholery (ie habitat loss/encroachment, pollution, disease, over-hunting etc).
I think if we don't cross that line into hubris, it could be a really good thing.
Well of course not animals such as mammoths or dinosaurs. Those animals existed at such different times then today and could be a huge threat to other species. And also may not be habitable for the ecosystems of the present.
But to bring back a more modern animal I think could be beneficial. Because there are many other species of animals that rely on other certain species of animals. There's lots of animals that humans would have a hardtime dealing with if they went extinct. Bees for instance~ If honey bees were to ever go extinct it would significantly effect humans most other speciesas well. How could plants become fertilized then? They also help spread seeds for more plants to grow. If bees went extinct then an immense amount of plants would go extinct then many species of herbivores would go extinct then carnivores and so on. That includes the possible extinction of humans as well.
It really depends on the animal and how beneficial it would be.

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

At 7/20/2013 8:23:26 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

Good:To be approved of, usually any act or thing which is associated with acts that enhance or protect society. Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Being positive in nature.

Yeah.

At 7/20/2013 11:42:13 PM, wordy wrote:

At 7/20/2013 8:23:26 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

Good:To be approved of, usually any act or thing which is associated with acts that enhance or protect society. Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Being positive in nature.

And do you imagine it's possible to answer this question at such a general level?

At 7/21/2013 6:53:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/20/2013 11:42:13 PM, wordy wrote:

At 7/20/2013 8:23:26 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

Good:To be approved of, usually any act or thing which is associated with acts that enhance or protect society. Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Being positive in nature.

And do you imagine it's possible to answer this question at such a general level?

..So.. What am I suppose to do..? What level do you want..? I don't get it..

Why not?

At 7/21/2013 6:57:56 AM, wordy wrote:

At 7/21/2013 6:53:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/20/2013 11:42:13 PM, wordy wrote:

At 7/20/2013 8:23:26 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

Good:To be approved of, usually any act or thing which is associated with acts that enhance or protect society. Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Being positive in nature.

And do you imagine it's possible to answer this question at such a general level?

..So.. What am I suppose to do..? What level do you want..? I don't get it..

95% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and you want us to know if de-extinction is good? How is it possible to know that? Maybe it's good for specific species. Maybe it's bad for specific species. Most probably wouldn't be able to even survive in the current environment.

There is no way of telling if any becomes an invasive species, or creates a plague or famine, or to stabilize the environment, reverse global warming, or cure diseases.

I think there stands a lot to gain in terms of increasing our scientific knowledge of life on this planet, which is good, but there is no way to know what all of the variables would be.

At 7/21/2013 7:56:10 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/21/2013 6:57:56 AM, wordy wrote:

At 7/21/2013 6:53:08 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/20/2013 11:42:13 PM, wordy wrote:

At 7/20/2013 8:23:26 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Define: Good

Good:To be approved of, usually any act or thing which is associated with acts that enhance or protect society. Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Being positive in nature.

And do you imagine it's possible to answer this question at such a general level?

..So.. What am I suppose to do..? What level do you want..? I don't get it..

95% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and you want us to know if de-extinction is good? How is it possible to know that? Maybe it's good for specific species. Maybe it's bad for specific species. Most probably wouldn't be able to even survive in the current environment.

There is no way of telling if any becomes an invasive species, or creates a plague or famine, or to stabilize the environment, reverse global warming, or cure diseases.

I think there stands a lot to gain in terms of increasing our scientific knowledge of life on this planet, which is good, but there is no way to know what all of the variables would be.

Oh. I understand your point now :]

I support cloning thylacines.

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

For the hell of it, or to achieve a given end?

If you're referring to the "de-extinction" of animals that went extinct due to human influence, then it depends on whether that's part of a larger goal.

For example, if the intention were to bring the planet back to a stable equilibrium based on an idealized assumption of what it might be like without the destructive aspects of human development, then it could certainly be a good thing. There were large-scale human influences on the planet that humanity didn't foresee that could be corrected, to a degree.

At 7/19/2013 4:13:29 AM, wordy wrote:
Is de-extinction (bringing extinct animals back into the world) a good idea?

Depends what you're bringing back and why.

At 7/20/2013 12:37:36 PM, wordy wrote:
But...By that same logic, we shouldn't do anything to protect animals on the verge of extinction either.

Also true.

There must be some tangible benefit to us for it to be considered a "good" idea. For example, raising cattle for our consumption.

But armed guards protecting the few remaining northern white rhinos 24/7? Waste of resources.

At 7/22/2013 11:15:18 AM, Quan wrote:
But armed guards protecting the few remaining northern white rhinos 24/7? Waste of resources.

Because appreciating something represented by one of the last specimens of a given subspecies is clearly wasteful...

At 7/22/2013 12:22:52 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

At 7/22/2013 11:15:18 AM, Quan wrote:
But armed guards protecting the few remaining northern white rhinos 24/7? Waste of resources.

Because appreciating something represented by one of the last specimens of a given subspecies is clearly wasteful...

The problem is that white rhinos aren't used for anything. If people were allowed to keep them as pets and livestock, there would be a huge demand for more of them. We'd be growing them in incubators all over the place.

At 7/22/2013 12:22:52 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

At 7/22/2013 11:15:18 AM, Quan wrote:
But armed guards protecting the few remaining northern white rhinos 24/7? Waste of resources.

Because appreciating something represented by one of the last specimens of a given subspecies is clearly wasteful...

Species preservation is very expensive and, in this case, provides no tangible benefit. It is the very definition of a waste of resources.

I'm fairly sure that the preservation of the northern white rhino specifically is temporary (the remaining lifetime of the last 3 or 4 of them) and funded by donations, so no one is going to complain about it.

At 7/23/2013 11:33:34 AM, Quan wrote:

At 7/22/2013 12:22:52 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

At 7/22/2013 11:15:18 AM, Quan wrote:
But armed guards protecting the few remaining northern white rhinos 24/7? Waste of resources.

Because appreciating something represented by one of the last specimens of a given subspecies is clearly wasteful...

Species preservation is very expensive and, in this case, provides no tangible benefit. It is the very definition of a waste of resources.

I'm fairly sure that the preservation of the northern white rhino specifically is temporary (the remaining lifetime of the last 3 or 4 of them) and funded by donations, so no one is going to complain about it.

Why are tangible benefits the only ones that are important?

To the OP, I wouldn't mind seeing the resurrection of the Tasmanian tiger but it's not something I would suggest the government set as a research target.

At 7/23/2013 5:14:29 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Why are tangible benefits the only ones that are important?

I should clarify that this is only in the context of using public funding. There's nothing inherently wrong with privately funding species preservation (such as the preservation of the northern white rhino being funded by donations.) But tax dollars should only be spent on things that benefit taxpayers.

At 7/19/2013 2:40:21 PM, wordy wrote:

At 7/19/2013 2:00:01 PM, Quan wrote:
They went extinct for a reason. They'll probably just go extinct again unless a substantial amount of resources are wasted to protect them.

That is a very good point. Short and perfect.

not perfect at all. apparently downgrading is considered evolution in nature's eyes

At 7/24/2013 1:34:17 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
not perfect at all. apparently downgrading is considered evolution in nature's eyes

I'm not sure I understand. Species go extinct because they are in some way inferior and unfit to live in their environment.

At 7/24/2013 2:15:10 PM, Quan wrote:

At 7/24/2013 1:34:17 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
not perfect at all. apparently downgrading is considered evolution in nature's eyes

I'm not sure I understand. Species go extinct because they are in some way inferior and unfit to live in their environment.

thats not the case of the dinosaurs they were wiped out by an outside factor. a meteor. nothing on land was evovled enough to survive it. and reptiles today are very inferior to dinosaurs.

At 7/24/2013 2:17:25 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
nothing on land was evovled enough to survive it.

Dinosaurs were massive, requiring a lot of energy (food), and those that survived the initial impact and intense heat were no longer able to consume enough to survive. Plenty of smaller, more energy efficient species did survive.

At 7/24/2013 2:28:54 PM, Quan wrote:

At 7/24/2013 2:17:25 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
nothing on land was evovled enough to survive it.

Dinosaurs were massive, requiring a lot of energy (food), and those that survived the initial impact and intense heat were no longer able to consume enough to survive. Plenty of smaller, more energy efficient species did survive.

many of the dinosaurs were far more efficient than reptiles today

I want my Jurassic Park, goddamnit.

At 7/24/2013 4:24:23 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

At 7/24/2013 2:28:54 PM, Quan wrote:

At 7/24/2013 2:17:25 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
nothing on land was evovled enough to survive it.

Dinosaurs were massive, requiring a lot of energy (food), and those that survived the initial impact and intense heat were no longer able to consume enough to survive. Plenty of smaller, more energy efficient species did survive.

many of the dinosaurs were far more efficient than reptiles today

Actually they weren't.

1. Dinosaurs were warm-blooded, meaning that they needed to eat regularly to maintain their body temperature. Crocodiles were cold-blooded, allowing them to go for several months without eating.

2. Dinosaurs were large, while birds were small. With limited food during the years of K-Pg extinction event, birds were better suited to survive as they didn't need as much food.

In summary, the conditions after the meteor hit created a selection pressure against large animals such as dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, and giant crocodiles, while favoring smaller animals such as birds, snakes, rat-sized mammals and normal-sized crocodiles.