Jurassic Park: Just because we can, does it mean we should?

Asked by: ladiesman
  • Well It Is Great Proof of Evolution, Especially Macroevolution:

    They will not be using DNA from mosquitoes trapped in amber, as that is most likely going to produce just more Mosquitoes, but they will be using DNA from existing Dinosaurs, namely Birds. They have already had some success at producing Tails and Teeth in Bird Embryos. Since the Raptor tails still exist inside Bird DNA, it has only been turned off in the Transcription phase by a gene/protein which when they defeated this by reinserting the tail DNA they grew a tail, and the same goes for teeth. The researchers believe that within the next 50 years they may be able to De-Evolve an Ostrich into the original Raptor it Evolved from.
    So why not, such a success will demonstrate the reality of Evolution to even the most hard headed Critic.
    But, as Usual, Ken Ham will go straight into Denial mode and Ignore the existence as he does to every other obvious proof of Evolution such as the recent Dinosaur to Bird Transitional Fossil.

  • Except where it takes the rights of others away, yes. We were given the power to learn and use this world, therefore we

    Should use it and learn how to improve it even more.

    Clone them, and bring them back into existence for the betterment of human understanding and learning. They are just animals, for us to use how we deem necessary.

    Now I have to put 11 more words, that will be it.

  • The Contingency First:

    I cannot think of a plan humans have implemented without a contingency plan for living animals. Large, small, or otherwise if it bleeds you can kill it and if you can kill it then it's safe to resurrect so long as you have that killswitch handy for when it eats one of your researchers or accidentally flips out and destroys the electric fence control panel.

  • Not necessarily, no

    In the case of Jurassic Park, the issue is whether or not it is immoral, if not unwise to bring back an extinct species. I think any species that is extinct should remain extinct because if nature wanted them to live on, they would still be around. In the film, John Hammond argues that he brought back dinosaurs simply because he can, but Ian Malcolm counters that argument with, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should".

  • Why bring back what man will kill anyway?

    We have very little care for the animals that are around today. If we brought back dinosaurs of any kind, we would only want to drive them back into extinction later. As for Jurassic Park, while I don't believe it morally right to bring these animals back at all, it feels especially wrong to bring them back just for our entertainment. Bringing back an ancient species is against nature and, just as with most of humanity's activities, is bound to go horribly awry.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Formerland1 says2014-07-21T14:27:46.583
Jurassic park only failed because of a series of very unlikely events , in real life the chance something like that would happen would be very low.