70 thoughts on “Ethical Discussions: De-Extinction”

1. The idea of de-extinction is very interesting. On one side, if we de-extinct something such as the passenger pigeon, there are environmental benefits to this; however, I do not understand what the benefit would be to de-extinct a species such as the woolly mammoth. Since scientists do not have any extinct species’ exact DNA, we are not certain what we are going to get. Referring to the movie Jurassic World, the scientists combined DNA from multiple species to create the Indominus Rex. That turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. Although the story is fictional, the idea is very much real. As far as the ethical point of view, I do not think that “bringing back the dead” is ethical at all. Even if we have the exact DNA, we still have no guarantee on the personality of the subject that was brought back to life. If there was a guarantee that there would be no consequences to resurrection, then it would be something to consider, but as things stand in technology, I do not believe that anyone should intentionally disrupt nature. Scientists could use the ideas that they have for de-extinction and use that to prevent other species from becoming extinct. A good example of this is the honey bee. Pollination is required for crops to grow. Without bees, this ceases to happen. In my opinion, scientists need to focus on keeping endangered species alive and healthy, not waste time trying to figure out how to create a “Frankenstein.”

2. I recently saw a video about the biologist, Ben Novak, who works for an organization that is attempting to revive and restore species, like the passenger pigeon. Unfortunately, the issue I see with trying to revive a species like the woolly mammoth, or the passenger pigeon is the probability that once it is brought back, it might not survive in this environment. One event took place in Spain in 2003, the scientists used DNA they had to bring back a mountain goat. Sadly, the goat passed away minutes later. This costs millions of dollars on experiments and research and in the end, the percentage of it surviving is low. I believe that we should instead be finding a way to fix our environment and preserving the species we have now until they become extinct. Especially, think what it would be like to “de-extinct” a woolly mammoth, and place it in the Arctic where back in its day the planet was twenty degrees colder and now with the drastic effects of climate change, my opinion is that it wouldn’t be able to adapt. As scientists and conservationists mentioned , ” that the habitat no longer exists in the way it did before these species became extinct,” I agree with them. Closely analyzing the fact that even the species we have now year after year, are becoming extinct. It’s even hard for them to survive now, let alone bring back a species that has been extinct for 10,000 years. The species we have now are the stakeholders that are greatly affected in the long run. The time that is spent on research on genetically cloning and bringing -back species should be used to save our and preserve the environment. And just think of the chaos in the world today, think of the nuisance a species like the woolly mammoth would be.
   WC: 309

3. Resurrecting extinct species is a very controversial subject. I fully oppose resurrecting animals that went extinct naturally, whether it was hundreds of years ago or millions. Although it would be incredible to see dinosaurs living and breathing today they naturally died out long ago. Some species of dinosaurs actually evolved into some of the birds we see today, which goes to show how animals evolve to survive. Animals that have naturally gone extinct should not be resurrected because it is just another part of nature. The Earth and all of its inhabitants are continually changing and evolving, life is not meant to always stay the same. Some animals that have become extinct are just not meant to be brought back into a world that has changed so much. Now, I would like to discuss the ethics of resurrecting animals that man has caused to become extinct. In nature some animals dominate others, sometimes it is natural and sometimes it is due to humans introducing the animal. Invasive species in Florida include the lionfish, which is hunted throughout the year during tournaments and awards are given to those with the best catch. Humans seem to enjoy glorifying the death of invasive animals that seemingly destroy our environment and bring other species to their demise. Now, some of these dominant species that destroy other species and environment are natural and some are brought over by humans. It seems incredibly rotten to me that humans glorify the deaths of invasive animals in order to protect the environment when humans are the MOST invasive species of all time while also contributing to the introduction of many invasive species and destruction of the environment. Humans have overpopulated many areas and destroyed the homes of many species now on the verge of extinction. There is a somewhat natural order to life, and messing with genetics seems absurd to me. It is incredibly sad that animals are going extinct because of humans, but humans being dominant could be considered somewhat natural. The most upsetting part is that many humans have lost their connection to nature and their respect for the Earth. Humans are part of nature and although we have become the dominant invasive species that has killed many animals, it does not mean we should start artificially creating these animals that have been lost. We already have GMO and processed foods poisoning the people, is it truly ethical to defy nature and create new animals out of pieces of old DNA? Just because humans have the higher consciousness do we truly have the right to play the role of creator? I do not believe people should be messing with genetics to the point of creating new animals and GM animals. It is sad that humans have let nature get to this point of deterioration, but correcting our wrongs by making our world artificial is not the way. To correct the damage we’ve done to the environment I believe we should start showing more respect for nature and shift out of this artificial era into a more natural unity with nature. Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but they can be forgiven when humans start caring about the environment more and reconciling for the damage done. Modifying animal genetics is not natural and I do not believe it is ethical.

4. The resurrection of some species can bring about a lot of controversy. It all however just depends on what way you look at it; both sides have pros and cons. Although there may not be a way to resurrect a species, it is however possible to clone them. As the article points out, it has been done before with Dolly the sheep back in 1996. However, the clone of the woolly mammoth or the passenger pigeon wouldn’t work without having the full components of the DNA and chromosomes. The scientists that are interested in having these animals come back don’t really have an exact way to clone these animals without first finding a similar match to that particular species.

   You must ask yourself, if we do have the capability to do so, should we? My response to this question is no. Since the animals have been extinct, I have shared very similar views with the scientists and conservationists who are against the idea. Bringing back an extinct species can cause a lot of environmental problems. As mentioned, the habitats that the animals used to live in probably don’t exist anymore, and with the growing population of humanity, habitats for animals keep getting more limited. A very important issue that I think should be talked about is the fact that you would be releasing a genetically modified species into the world. Without careful consideration, the new species can cross breed with another and cause many issues, specifically environmental. Just like in the Jurassic World movie, they had a dinosaur crossed between a raptor and T-Rex. In the movie’s case, the hybrid leads to nothing but disaster. Why would anyone want to risk that happening in the real world?

   In my opinion, it is not ethical to use the technology we have to resurrect extinct species. The pros outweigh the cons in this situation and environmentally, the world would be greatly impacted by the sudden change of species living amongst it. I think it is very important to let nature take it’s course and to make sure that everybody stays out of it; let things happen naturally.

5. Being able to resurrect extinct species could be something worth looking into, but you must ask yourself. Is it ethically correct? Is it worth the money? The article does state, that humans are to blame for ruining animals habitats, which is in fact somewhat true. If you think about it, look at all the land that is being developed across the world, is this necessary with all the foreclosures and short sales that are available? Developing land like we are currently doing, is killing the habitat for the animals to live in, making them move to another location, or live within home associations, hoping not to get killed or removed, hoping to have another meal the next day, to live another day. The cost it would take to implement resurrecting extinct animals, would cost a lot of money, this money could be used towards something else that could help out the world at the moment. Another thing you have to think about, how is this animal going to develop with the different genes? One way to find out is to test out the theory on one animal, study what the effects are, before implementing the resurrection of animals into many different animals. At this point, I think that scientist should focus on the prevention of animals that are going to be extinct within the next decade, this is more important than resurrecting extinct animals at the moment with the scientist not even sure on what the outcome would be for the resurrection.

6. If humans successfully create technology to resurrect now extinct species; I do not agree that we should. We may have caused some of these species to go extinct but we should focus on helping the animals that are endangered of becoming extinct. We cannot alter the past only prevent the same mistakes from being made.

   It is not ethical to technologically manipulate species to recreate extinct ones. It goes against the natural order of the life cycle. We do not know the consequences of these actions. If we were successful at de-extinction of a now extinct species, the risks outweigh the benefits. If we do recreate an extinct species more harm can be done to the current species and environment. We would be manipulating current animals in the process and afterwards we do not know if these recreated animals can live and adopt to the environment opposed to a zoo.

   Ethically, humans should focus their resources to helping the current environment and animals opposed to the reanimation of extinct species. Our time, money, and energy should be dedicated towards bettering the things we can control. For example, the endangered species list could be a focus to help prevent the loss of these animals. As far as the environment, there are many programs to help contribute towards a healthy ecosystem. Examples that could help the environment are to recycle, stopping deforestation, clean up oceans, parks, and land, help animals in the wilderness, and maintain a balance between our society and nature.

   We can help better our plant for the future but we cannot change the past.

7. I think it is actually quite amazing that we have the technology to bring an entire extinct species back to life. At the same time, it’s also a little scary. Considering they don’t have the exact chemistry needed to replicate the wooly mammoth, they will use an elephant as the “surrogate.” The idea of crossbreeding a man-made animal is a bit frightening. Considering they are not 100% sure what the outcome will be or the type of environment the animal will thrive in. This also pertains to the new Jurassic World movie, where they cross-bred two different dinosaur species and wound up with something that was actually extremely dangerous. Since they are not entirely sure what they would be creating, it could be a very risky thing to do. The wooly mammoth and elephant cross breed could possess qualities that we have never seen before because there was never an animal like that to exist. The author of the blog post also brings forth an important factor in the resurrecting of extinct animals stating that people won’t be as concerned with protecting the existing environment if they know we can just bring a species back to life. I think that is a major factor in this as well. Many people won’t be as concerned with protecting our existing wildlife and creatures because they will just assume we can create another race. I also think that since these animals have become extinct the environment they used to be able to thrive is not what it used to be. Due to climate change these animals might not have the correct habitat to live in anymore. As well as the fact that more animals means more use resources. We could possibly be doing more damage to the environment than helping it.

8. Although the idea of de-extinction sounds very intriguing, I do not think it is ethical to bring back species that have already been extinct. It might sound morally wrong when even some of these animals have gone extinct due to human activity, for instance the passenger pigeon; I think that mother nature should not be toyed with, and trying to resurrect extinct species can have some imperative consequences. It is unethical because resurrecting species is not a guaranteed perfection. As stated in the articles, scientists only have fragments of the DNA, therefore they could not create a diverse or versatile population. Also, it is unethical to resurrect a species when they have been extinct for so long. The passenger pigeon went extinct in 1914; since 1914, the environment has changed dramatically, and who knows how well the passenger pigeon with flourish in a contemporary environment. I think that it is more imperative to help endangered species survive, rather than spending money trying to resurrect species that have been extinct for more than a century. De-extinction is unethical in most cases, but it can also have many benefits in certain situations. Overall, the de-extinction of passenger pigeons is unethical and scientists should focus on ways to really benefit the environment and the people.

9. After reading the article on De-Extinction, there are two conflicting sides on this ethical issue. The idea of bringing back an extinct species is very exciting. The positive effects are numerous. Scientists could learn more about evolution and what might have caused the extinction in the first place. De-Extinction could create breakthroughs in genetic engineering. The effect of reviving an extinct species could have a dramatic effect on threatened or damaged ecosystems. Bringing back a low level species could help restore these types of ecosystems. We also have to ask ourselves, were we responsible for the extinction in the first place? If that is the case, we might have the moral responsibility to restore what we have destroyed. Lastly, besides the factors already listed, the sheer curiosity that will be evoked is compelling.
   The negative effects of De-Extinction are valid as well. If humans were to bring back an extinct species, what would be their justification? Some might suggest that they would only do so for monetary gain. This is unethical because the animals would be exploited, which is in contrary to the Theory of Universality. Bringing back an extinct species could be bad for the environment as well. These animals have been extinct, some for a very long time, and their spot in the environment may not exist anymore. They might damage the environment further. They could also carry diseases with unknown cures.
   One of the most important factors, in my opinion, is that De-Extinction might alter people’s perceptions on the currently endangered species. They may not care enough to protect them if they think that they can just make more. I think our focus needs to be on the present and future, and not on the past.

10. I think that bringing back animals that are now extinct is not a good idea and I say this because they are extinct for a reason, if it was meant for them to still now be relevant they would be. Take the wooly mammoth for example which has been extinct for quite some time now, we now have a similar animal that is seen today called the “elephant” they are both two different animals in plain sight but they do share some physical attributes. Elephants are animals that we can see here and now at our local zoos, but these are also animals that are in danger of becoming extinct themselves. I think the focus should be more on the animals that we have here now that are at risk for becoming extinct instead of probing into scientific matters of how to create any type of replica of any animal that is now extinct. When I saw “Jurassic World” I was really amazed at what was being achieved with scientific DNA, but what I also remember in the movie was watching complete destruction when mixing different species to create a replica or even better model of an extinct animal. I think that when factoring out the possibilities of creating replicas of extinct animals, one should really weigh in the possibility of creating something that could potentially be dangerous or hazardous to human life. Although the scientist created a remarkable make-up of the T-Rex, the end result was catastrophic in the end.

11. The thought of recreating an extinct animal back to life by scientific testing and creating is farfetched. Although the subject is very interesting, especially with the unimaginable possibilities; however, the consequences could out weight its usefulness. I would have to agree with the scientist and conservationist who argue against the idea of de-extinction. Agreeing with the points made, many of the extinct animal’s homes have been demolished and territories have been deforested. Where would these animals locate? Those animals could suffer, again, or cause harm native animals in the area; even drive out native species. Which species will this brought back effect? Including the adaption in native or foreign nations. Are only North American species in question? Another concern and perhaps the greatest concern is that creating genetically modified species could introduce unsteady species. Taking into account the example of the wooly mammoth, even recreating a mammoth would need a surrogate in order to be created. There is so certainty that combing these two species would, “cold resistant blood and thick fur.” Perhaps the new species would be able to resist cold temperatures, or perhaps carry a disease from the African elephant that carries over to the Mammoth and other species in the Artic. Honestly, no one would know for sure what could be created in a lab test tube. Because scientist cannot control which traits will be passed on or not. Who will benefit from this? The scientist or the community? I believe that scientist and conservationist should focus and put their means to conserving current species in endangered habitats. Even firstly protecting ecosystems before repopulating.

12. I feel that De-extinction is not a very wise decision. When some of these animals where alive there was plenty of space for them to dwell, and vegetation to eat. How could we reverse a species that went extinct naturally or because humans over took their habitat? To bring back these species would not be fair to them. The climate is different, there are more human beings then before, and where could these creatures possibly live? It is our ethical duty to provide and take care of those creatures now who are living or are coming close to extinction. We can make their habitat’s safe and abundant which in turn will make the species thrive. It is not up to man to recreate a creation. Although the idea is interesting, it is very dangerous to play with mother nature.

13. De-extinction is very interesting topic to consider, Much of the species are going extincted, but is it right to mix other genes from animals to keep the animal alive. This topic is definitively at conflict of interest. I do not believe this morally ethical because it could affect other species and ruin the environment. Example of how environment can be ruined is recreation of Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs shown in movie Jurassic park killed people and disrupt other animals habitat. Even if they had the technology and the ability to recreate animal there always be some flaw or error in the making. The money that used to DE-extinct the animals should go to the animals that are still alive . The money should help existing animals continue their species. There should be no misrepresentation on this topic to say that that re extinct some animals might better the environment and help repay all the times people killed so many animals. the valid thing to consider here is the welfare of animals and making sure they are being taken care of. Utility principle should be applied here because it makes animals and people happy. The reason they could be happy is because they can be safe , use money to benefit their environment and keep animals healthy. If zoo’s have healthy and happy animals; people would be happy and protect the natural habitat. Moral judgements need to be made because doing this type of experiment to fix past mistakes is not the way to go. People need to be honest and think about the future in such way that benefits all people and there are no minor mistakes on experiment that should not even happen.

14. It is not humans’ obligation to bring back these extinct species, it is our obligation to protect the ones we currently have. The unforeseen outcomes of bringing back extinct species could hurt the species around them by taking their food sources, habitat, and could have conflicting behaviors. While the thought of bringing a species back to life is fascinating, it’s not worth putting the environment at risk. I think we should just focus on making the environment a healthier place for humans and animals. Tim Keusch’s comment does bring about a valid argument for the flip side of the argument, how if their extinction was because of humans and if their extinction is hindering the environment that we should attempt de-extinction. And that de-extinction could provide us with the opportunity to learn how to better genetic engineering. With this side of the argument in mind I think that this would be a great opportunity, only if we do it to the right species. Bringing back wholly Mammoths could hurt the nearly extinct polar bear and bringing back the Passenger Pigeons could take away a lot of the food supply for other birds. It’s humans’ responsibility to protect and respect the environment around us, so if scientists do go through with the process of de-extinction they should be VERY careful with it.

15. Although the DE -extinction is an interesting idea, I don’t think it will helpful for the environment, and would not bring any benefits. Specie that was extinct is not going to be the same, as the scientists argue there is not exact same DNA of a mammoth. They said they can create specie genetically close, so maybe this new specie could not adapted to the habitat. I don’t think that resurrecting extinct species with technology is ethical because we don’t know what consequences it’s may have for the environment, society and also other animals that are in the same habit. Also if they have to create a new habitat for these new species because their habitat already disappearance, so it will a huge of changes and a lot of spend money. Also they would overpopulate. I think what is done is done, so the best think is to prevent that this continue to happen. People in general can prevent this situation by follow their ethical issues, educate them, and the new generations to take care of the nature and animals. For example by cleaning oceans, stopping deforestation, and by recycling. Scientist should focus on protect all species that we have now to reproduce. Also to better adequate their habits. This is the best moral option to stop the extinction and conserve as natural our animals and ecosystem. This is a good article to make conscience about what is happening in our world, and how important are animals, plants, oceans for the humanity.
    “Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.” Albert Einstein.

16. PHI1600

17. There a good reasons for bringing back extint species but scientist would have to be careful on which ones. Careful studies, research, and preparations would have to be done in order to decide if doing so is good or not. Good in the sense that it will not cause harm to others and the species can survive in this environment. I do not see anything wrong if it can benefit the human race and/or the species itself. It cannot be something like these dinosaurs. The movie showed it is not a good idea for animals like to be anywhere near humans. Let alone a theme park. Dinosaurs cannot be controlled and predicted. They are dangerous and belong in the past.

    645

18. If we do in fact have the capability to be successful at de-extinction of some now extinct species, we absolutely should not do so. What would make scientists believe that if they were to bring back a group of animals that were already extinct, that they would not become extinct again. There is a reason in the first place that these animals are not here today. I believe that individuals who have the desire to kill animals for pleasure, will continue killing animals even if they are almost extinct again. What laws will be implemented if it is the case that scientists bring back extinct species? Having animals near extinction only make them “worth more” to hunters. There is no such law that can be put in place that will stop the occasional killing when there is no one present to get an individual in trouble. Another reason why we should not bring back extinct species is because they will not be the same thing. When scientists mix certain genes and cells, there is no telling what will become of the results. They may think one thing will come out of it, but who is to say it will not become some monster that is uncontrollable. Many movies are made that the producers have great imaginations, but I believe if scientists start messing with trying to recreate live animals that are extinct for a certain purpose, that nothing good will come out of it. I don’t think that it is ethical to use technology to resurrect a now extinct species. These species are extinct for a reason, sometimes beyond knowledge, but they should stay extinct and we should continue learning about them in science books of how they were.
    644

19. I really liked your ideas, and I agree on most of it. I do not see the need for a mammoth because it would have to be kept in a zoo, there is no place for it to have a natural habitat. Now the Honey Bee is something that should be a top priority, our whole planet needs them and every resource should be spent on trying to not only save them but to reverse whatever is killing them. Now I would love to see a live Tasmanian dog and many other species that have been lost to human abuse and negligence, but I think that many things would have to be considered before a decision about de-extinction could be made such as whether there is the proper habitat for them, if they would fit properly with the indigenous species in the chosen area for them, would they have to be confined in zoos, etc. #955

20. PHI1600 995

21. I find this idea of de-extinction to be interesting. I had not heard about it until reading this article. It surprises me that this article began with the topic of Jurassic World, a fictional film. Although it would be nice to experience and in several ways be beneficial to have previous species back, but over thousands of year’s replacement species have taken the place of those lost. What would happen if they were to bring back these creatures? They would be locked up somewhere, put on display for people to see what science had the ability to do. This is unethical because it is exploiting the creature for its recreation and not for the purpose in which it was recreated. I do not feel as though there is a need (on the contrary to scientist desires) to create species over again. First off because it could be harmful to both the economic system (extreme loss of money if failure prevails) and to the environment (limited space and food for such a creature in this day and age). And secondly, in my opinion, I personally believe that God designed for things to be a certain way and if He willed a species to go extinct, there was a reason for it. Science has only become so widely advanced in the last few decades. I think scientists want to act without thinking about the pros and cons to the idea first. It would be more harmful than helpful; therefore, I am against the idea of this happening.

22. De-extinction is an incredibly exciting topic. If somehow this could become common practice we could fix all kinds of problems, and solve straight up mysteries. First, we could stop worrying about the bees; the bees are dying and this could prove detrimental to our current ecosystem. So bam, that problem is solved. After that’s taken care of we should focus on where this is going. First these birds that only because extinct recently. Then a species like wooly mammoth. Then it could go wide: I’m talkin’ humans. For instance, we’re always on the lookout for the “missing link.” Recently we (humanity) found a cache of remains, young, old, male, female, all well preserved in a cave. We hit this jackpot burial ground which allows us to gain incredible insights into their diet, their rituals, their brain shape and size. Now what if we could find some osteoblasts in those bones. Every cell of the human body contains the material to create every single type of tissue in the human body. Bringing back these human relatives would be extremely controversial. An ethical minefield, where every step leading to a decision on either side of the argument is risky. But imagine what we could learn! For that matter, imagine the techniques we will perfect during the research to perfect this process. We could hypothetically re-awaken the great minds of history in a whole new body and life. We could actually solve the nature vs nurture debate. The research on epigenetics would blow up. If I had to take a stance on this de-extinction business, I would personally vote that it is highly unethical, and we (mankind) have no business messing with nature, at least until we have explored all possible ramifications. But as a curious mind, I wish terribly that I could be at the forefront of this research, and I would love to throw ethical caution to the wind.

23. The idea of bringing back species that are extinct sounds amazing and when thinking emotionally it sounds like the right thing to do. However, if those species got extinct, it has a reason. The blame for extinct species cannot only rely on the damage that humans have caused to our planet, by contaminating the atmosphere with co2 and destroying habitats in order to build cities. A long time ago when humans were not polluting the planet, there were already many species losing their habitat because of natural phenomena. Species such as dinosaurs and the Woolly Mammoth became extinct because of natural disasters that occurred during that period. Therefore, I think that bringing back species that are already extinct will not stop the fact that the world is going to keep changing its weather with the years, and the fact that more species will become extinct. What I think humans should do is to take care of the species we currently have by not destroying their habitat and protect them with hunting prohibitions. I think that it will not be ethical resurrecting species like the Woolly Mammoth or the passenger pigeon since scientist have already made it clear that they can use the DNA they have. However, it is not guaranteed that the clones of the species will be exactly the same. Some of the species might be created with genetic problems, which could affect ecosystems. Consequently, the outcome would be even worse, killing or affecting the species we now have by de-extinction would be completely unethical and selfish. A good example for this is the movie Jurassic park, by creating a genetically modified dinosaur they got a problem that got out of their hands. They did not have the habitat or the experience to control such dangerous specie. Today, we will not have a place for many of those species that were once alive in the planet earth, their habitats have already been altered; for this reason, there is no reason to resurrect them if they will not have their natural habitat and will probably die off again.

24. 1810^

25. The fact that any of this is even in discussion is remarkable. Not saying its 100% ethical but the possibility of bringing back an extinct animal shows how far technology has come. The question is do we really need to bring back certain species? How does that benefit us as an ecosystem? As it was argued above, yes it would be nice for the generations now to be able to experience extinct species, but where will all of these new inhabitants live? All the money being funded for these experiments and facilities to hold the new species is money that could be used for the species we have now. We have animals going extinct everyday. It would be more ethical if we spent our resources helping the environment we live in now instead of introducing new factors that could disrupt our home. What’s to say these experiments don’t turn out bad and like in the movie, Jurassic World, we have total chaos. We not only spent millions of dollars to create this species but then we would spend even more money to destroy it. The “Wooly Mammoth” or elephant could have some serious genetic mishaps, and that’s a pretty large animal to be messing around with. Those millions of dollars could be spent helping instead of creating the unknown. Another thing we should as ourselves is if we have the ability to bring back the dead, who’s to say these scientists won’t start human trials. This is using technology to our advantage and misuse of something like this could cause serious harm to the environment.

26. The idea of de-extinction is fascinating, who wouldn’t want to see animals that roamed the earth many years ago in this day in age? Scientists and historians would certainly have a field day if the process was a success. And yet, I do not believe it is ethically responsible to bring back extinct species…yet. While I can certainly imagine it one day being feasible, at our world’s current state, it would be more of a burden to put forth all the research and experimentation that would undoubtedly go into re-creating extinct species. Like mentioned in the article, too much effort would be focused on bringing back species that might not even be able to adapt to current environments (or could have negative effects on the ones that are already facing human-made issues), rather than protecting and working on re-building the species and lands that are at risk right this very moment.
    While it cannot be said that bringing the species back will be a total failure, the fact that there are very probable chances of unforeseen consequences makes me doubt whether it would be ethically okay to willingly bring a possible threat into this world. The threat of course being the possibility of harming the ecosystems we already have, as everything is finely balanced for how conditions are on earth right now. Whether or not this would actually happen is unknown, but taking that risk would be foolhardy without having proof that re-introducing these extinct species back into the world would have no negative effect on the environment whatsoever.
    Despite it being an interesting prospect, I believe technology is better suited for fixing the problems we have now instead of scrambling to fix the problems we might have later. #996

27. Bringing back extinct species has its benefits and disadvantages. Some of the benefits are that people and scientists today would better be able to study the species (both plant and animal) that we have very little if any information about. In doing so, it could potentially allow us to be able to better protect our environment and maybe stop the corrosive behaviors that we have inflicted on the planet. It could also allow us to potentially fix the problems that we have now. Some disadvanatges are that we don’t know one hundred percent for sure as to why or under what circumstances these flora and fauna went extinct. What if, by bringing back some of these – or even just one of these – species, it causes history to repeat itself and now the entire human race is extinct? That is a serious possiblity that must be considered. Spielburg’s idea of creating a park for people to go and see resurrected animals is an amazing concept. However, look at what happened. Mother nature ended up taking over what man started. How are we to be arrogant to think that we can control creatures that we don’t really know about? As much as I think that seeing majectic animals such as the stegosaurus or even seeing if the dodo bird is a silly as its name would be an amazing experience, I have mixed feelings as to whether or not it would be a good idea. There are too many unknowns for any person or group of people to give a definitve answer as to whether or not we would be safe.

28. This is a fascinating topic and is a very good example of the old adage “just because we can doesn’t mean we should.” In my opinion the negative consequences far out way the positive ones. The only plausibly nonnegative effect of a de-extinction would come from a zoo attraction ( I say nonnegative because I don’t believe it to be necessarily positive). The only other application would be a complete repopulation to try and counteract an extinction we perceive as our fault. And I believe that with the two sides of the argument presented in this article nothing in the pro category overpowers the fact that we just cannot account for exactly what will happen if we try to repopulate an extinct species. As stated in the article the environment that any extinct species had simply does not exist anymore, at least not exactly. Numbers of the species that coexisted with the extinct species and still exist are going to be drastically different and the scale of its environment is defiantly different if not nonexistent as well. The species that kept existing without the extinct species is not going to suddenly fall into some ancient environmental equilibrium that it once held. Introducing an old species will be the same as introducing a new species, it will be invasive and harmful. There are so many scenarios were something like this will go wrong and so few where it will go right. The world in general is not static it is dynamic so for us to pick a moment in time and try to keep it that way is preposterous in every sense.

29. De-extinction of animals would be a valuable endeavor in order to study why a certain species may have become extinct and to use that knowledge to help prevent future extinctions. There are many false arguments against de-extinction, such as, the animals would have to live in zoos, protecting the environment would not be as crucial, and unintended consequences of creating genetically modified species.

    The recreated animals would not have to live in Zoos. For example, there are many animal parks around the county that could be used to house the animals in a habitat similar to what we believe their natural environment would have been.

    This would encourage the conservation of the existing environment and the restoration of the areas that are in danger of disappearing. The environment would need to be maintained for existing species of animals and the conservation lands would also need to be expanded to accommodate the new species.

    These animals would be genetically modified. The manner in which the genes are modified would be different than the way existing animals, such as, horses, dogs, and cattle, were genetically modified by humans selecting the genes that were beneficial and breeding these animals for those traits. The same process of modifying genes was also used to create most of the fruits and vegetables that we eat.

    We should pursue de-extinction of animals because it will give us knowledge of how to preserve existing species. It will also provide a large amount of money from tourist visiting the parks where these animals are housed, and this will allow these funds to be used for more conservation.

30. This is an amazing discussion and there will be many opinions on it. I do not think if we have the chance to make extinct species, that we should. I believe there is a reason they became extinct and that they should stay that way. That is the past and it should stay that way and we should just find better ways to better the future that is ahead. Also, these extinct animals would be in cages and never have a normal life (as you seen in the new movie). It can be ethical to use technology to resurrect an extinct specie but I dont think we should. I think we should use the technology to study all the new upcoming species scientist are discovering every day. 995

    Is it ethical to use technology to resurrect a now extinct species?

    #spcethics

31. Bringing back animals that have been extinct sounds like an awesome idea to me. Creating a species so similar to those that have already been extinct, takes some time and effort and will be a lengthy process. The only downside to this is, it might cause potential harm to the animals already here today. They might not get along or adapt to their habitat like they used to. Often species will feel threatened when they have a new species in their area or territory. It could either go really well, or go really bad. I personally would love to see a wooly mammoth and not just in the movie Ice Age! Our weather here might be too humid for them, it will take them a long time to adapt depending on weather changes, habitat, areas, and other things among the species. We need to prevent extinction in the future and use this as an example to help better research as to why extinction is happening at a growing rate. Bringing an extinct species back to life could have consequences since we can’t determine exactly what’s going to happen with their behaviors and mood. 645

32. The thought of recreating or resurrecting extinct species is very controversial I feel ever more than say stem cell that helps people. I think it should not be done for many reasons. One we don’t know what adverse side effects it would have. Would the animals act/behave the same way they did when they were around years and years ago? What if they were hard to take care of and needed special medical attention. The attention we could not give me (they might be suffering). Although I don’t believe in evaluation I will say this. I think it was better that they went away naturally being phased out. What a horror it would be if we created them and they were just hanging around with no purpose other than for us to study them in labs suffering. I also think once the newness wore off that people would get bored with them. We only like the idea or think about entertaining the idea because it’s new (people love stuff that is new) and controversial (people love stuff that others don’t). Another thing to think about is who would fund such a costly experiment and for what reasons. I think the only people with money (prescription drug companies) would try to fund it as a dual purpose businesses adventure. They would try and see if anything either given to or produced by them could aid them in the next big must have RX drug. They would also spin it as a zoo. Welcoming families to see them. So my answer is no.
    Sean Cameron

33. Following through with scientific curiosity is an important aspect of the human condition. We may find ourselves on the wrong side of our research at times, but it holds true that knowing is almost always better than not knowing. In the case of de-extinction, I would argue, however, that this is a momentarily fruitless pursuit. Our planet is in an accelerated state of demise, due to our footprint. If there is no environment to accommodate the reintroduction of a species, Why reintroduce the species? We have a long list of problems we have yet to solve as earthlings. De-extinction could lead to a negative effects on the environment if the species reintroduced proves invasive. The ideas of creating more biodiversity and showing the youth species of times passed is an attractive one, but our planet doesn’t have the wiggle room for these kinds of luxuries. Climate change tops our list of issues, and our unwillingness to address it has only made matters worse. De-extinction is a wonderful idea, in that it allows us to right our wrongs. However, there are greater wrongs to right and we should focus on those for the wellbeing of ourselves, our planet, and its future species. Genetic diversity also poses an issue for de-extinction. Recreating an extinct species with uniform genetics can lead to natural imbalance. For example, If we reintroduced a species of saber-tooth tiger, all with an optimal genetic code for efficient hunting, we would find that these Tigers are thriving in a way that causes harm to their surroundings.

34. I believe that their are arguments for both, bringing them back and not. It will come down to the pros and cons of both and which will have the greater result. Since there is not exact DNA, we cannot confirm that we would be bringing back the exact animal and how such animal would react to the world’s current conditions. There is also the argument that even if we could recreate them, what is stopping them from becoming extinct again. Something about them, either their habitat, predators, etc. caused them to become extinct and there is no way we would know for sure if it would happen again. The benefits of certain extinct animals could benefit the food chain and the environment. The scientists will have to evaluate their pros and cons and make their decision as their are no laws that prohibit the new science.

35. I don’t believe any type of de-extinction process should be conducted at this time mostly because the planets’ current ecosystem and our reliance on oil needs to be addressed and a reversal process started before the population is increased by animals that are unknown if they can even survive anymore, given the current conditions we have created. Global warming is very real and I felt some ideas were forgetful to the current reality of our planet. The blog states, “The passenger pigeon was made extinct due in large part to hunting and the effects of deforestation.” Well those are 2 real problems that are still occurring today at extremely high rates. Supporters said, “De-extinction will restore and preserve ecosystems which have been harmed by the loss of species” but we are the ones who harmed those ecosystems that led to loss of species. In regards to the wooly mammoth de-extinction was going to “enable the animal to live in the Arctic as the mammoths once did”, however the Artic is shrinking quickly at the highest rates ever and can the much thinner ice even support the way these giants used to live? Lastly, I only mentioned oil earlier because the opponents of de-extinction argued that the, “amount of money which would be spent on de-extinction would be better spent on preventing the loss of species which now exist”. I fully agree with that along with that those funds can be used to invest in more renewable energies so we might one day be more prepared to experiment with de-extinction. I don’t think it is unethical to use technology to resurrect an extinct species however I do believe it is unethical to scientifically bring animals onto a current deteriorating planet.

    Section #996

36. I believe that we as human beings need to be held accountable for the impact we have on the natural balance of the world. With that said, I don’t think bringing back a hybrid Wooly Mammoth, whose ancestors were extinct around 10,000 years ago, is the answer for achieving that balance. By breathing life into an animal long extinct, you are potentially creating more harmful problems than beneficial ones. These genetically birthed, hybrid Wooly Mammoths would essentially become zoo commodities in a profit driven world. They would be treated as scientific objects rather than sacred living beings. Who are we to create a species and then keep it caged for public viewing? Alternatively, if this species were released into the wild, how would the Mammoth survive when it no longer has a natural habitat in the present 21st century? If by some chance it was possible to release it into the wild, there is no way to understand the ramifications of introducing a 10,000 year-old, extinct animal into an environment already inhabited by “native” species. In my opinion, de-extinction is only an option for recently extinct species, recent being 1,000 years. Bringing back recently extinct animals could prove to be an invaluable resource in protecting and preserving our fragile ecosystems. It is important to realize however, that bringing back a species is only valuable if their habitat still exists. For this reason, it is crucial that we understand that de-extinction is not a replacement for wildlife preservation. For me, de-extinction is only ethical if the species can be released and the risks involved in this release are minimal. I find the idea of bringing back a species simply for scientific achievement or as a novelty asset for a zoo is a complete disregard to that species’ quality of life. #996

37. I think that de-extinction of endangered species should not be considered when it comes to advancements in technology because it poses a potential threat to today’s society. Much like the animals we see in such films as Jurassic Park, we must always be cautious of exactly what type of mental mind frame this creatures would have today. Not to mention, they may be vicious because their natural habitat is no longer the same as before; furthermore, they’d become caged much like the animals at the city zoo. By that same token, with the consistent problems facing the ecosystem due to global warming, scientist must question if the pollution in the air would harm the species as well. Unfortunately, the atmosphere has become so polluted, that there may not be medical advancements to assist these species with their health related issues.644

38. I can see how de-extinction could be seen as a wondrous opportunity to some people, I’m just not one of them. It may sound cruel but in my mind these animals are no longer around because of the simple theory of Darwinism. Not everyone considers humans as a factor in natural selection, but really, we are just a superior animal. These extinct animals no longer have a luscious environment in which they can thrive; an environment would need to be manufactured for them that is adequate for survival. However, if we are able to re-create an animal that will be a benefit to the planet, that is something completely different. Either way, our main focus as a human species should not be on what new, or formally extinct, animals we can bring into the world, but on how we can sustain the world we live in so that these advances will not be in vain. In the next 50 years global warming will severely inhibit our ability to progress. There is no point in creating these animals until we are certain that the world we have already created can be maintained. 645

39. In my opinion it is quite astonishing that we have the innovation to breath life into a whole wiped out species back. In the meantime, it’s likewise somewhat alarming. Considering they don’t have the precise science expected to repeat the wooly mammoth, they will utilize an elephant as the “surrogate.” The thought of crossbreeding a man-made creature is a touch startling. Considering they are not 100% beyond any doubt what the result will be or the kind of environment the creature will flourish in. This likewise relates to the new Jurassic World motion picture, where they cross-reproduced two distinctive dinosaur species and twisted up with something that was entirely unsafe. Since they are not by any stretch of the imagination beyond any doubt what they would be making, it could be an exceptionally hazardous thing to do. The wooly mammoth and elephant cross breed could have qualities that we have never seen in light of the fact that there was never a creature like that to exist. The creator of the blog entry likewise delivers a vital variable in the restoring of wiped out creatures expressing that individuals won’t be as worried with securing the current environment in the event that they know we can simply breath life into an animal groups back. I believe that is a main consideration in this also. Numerous individuals won’t be as worried with ensuring our current untamed life and animals in light of the fact that they will simply expect we can make another race. I likewise surmise that since these creatures have gotten to be wiped out the earth they used to have the capacity to flourish is not what it used to be. Because of environmental change these creatures won’t not have the right living space to live in any longer. And in addition the way that more creatures means more utilize assets. We could be accomplishing more harm to the earth than helping it. 645

40. Humans over the years have destroyed habitat, displaced animals and totally disturbed the ecosystem. Throughout the years conservation movements have been counter productive. So with errors on the side of humans De-extentions would be another misjudgment as concerns to why extension happened in the first place. It is our responsibility to keep the world as we found it and we have selfishly taken in careless hunting while crying out for the good of all, animals have paid the price. . When efforts to are proven that we can take care of what we have then we can expand to the next phase.

41. The debate on whether or not extinct animals should be de-extinct in undoubtedly a questionable one. In my opinion, I believe that we should not de-extinct already extinct species for multiple reasons. For my main reasoning, I strongly believe that everything happens exactly the way it is destined to be and for a specific purpose. The result of certain animals that have become extinct has happened because it was destined to happen for a certain purpose. I believe that if they were not supposed to become extinct, then they would not have become extinct. Secondly, it appears when scientists de-extinct already extinct animals, they are not actually re-creating the exact animal that has become extinct, just a mere. If this is to be true, the result of this event could cause unknown disastrous consequences. In conclusion, if scientists are so concerned in restoring and protecting our eco-system, then I feel that the amount of time they are putting into de-extinction extinct animals should be put towards protecting endangered species.
    Class#:645

42. The DE-extinction of animals could potentially be very bad. The animals that are extinct have been for many years and their previous environments have evolved. The re- introduction of these animals could affect the environment by having overgrazing or not enough food for all the animals in that certain ecosystem. Also, the animals lived in different time periods that are very hard to recreate. Like the ice age. Animals that live in the arctic that are now in captivity have trouble with the environment, like polar bears. The idea of bringing an extinct animal back to life seems like a great idea, but there is a reason that certain animals are extinct. The animals couldn’t evolve or adapt to the changing Earth and so therefore died off. If the de- extinct animals got in the wrong hands, they could be used in a way to make profits and be used to cause harm. Overall, certain animals were meant to become extinct ans man can’t be blamed for everything that happens, but due to over hunting certain animals fie. But it is very hard to re- introduce animals into environments. #996

43. My first reaction is the initial awe and excitement that comes with the idea of de-extinction. Bringing back species that we once thought were gone forever is an amazing concept. However, we cannot play with biodiversity as if it is a toy. When species such as the wooly mammoth and the passenger pigeon became extinct, their impact was seen on the environment and on biodiversity. Over time, the environment and the species still living in it adapted. The living species have adjusted to an environment without those who have gone extinct and if we reintroduce a resurrected animal, we will see the same damage occur that happened when they first became extinct. We can’t simply toss a specie into the mix; the biodiversity will be negatively impacted. As stated, the extinct animals’ homes are now gone and there is no room for them in the current environment.

    I think the better choice is to use the process of de-extinction to bring more biodiversity to species that are still alive, but are on the brink of extinction. That way, we maintain the balance between species and the available space needed to sustain the animals.

    So I think the concept can be beneficial if used wisely. We cannot tinker with biodiversity and resurrecting species for fun or for our own enjoyments. Not to be cheesy, but let’s recall the famous quote from Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibility.” We must be responsible when using the power of de-extinction.

44. SECTION 996

45. For me this entire thing is very simple. I’m sure there are plenty of people who think cloning animals is a great idea, but I’m not in that group of people. There’s so many things that could go wrong when cloning anything, whether it be animals or food. Anything genetically modified isn’t good. Where would they live? How would they thrive? What impact would cloning have on the environment? Would they eventually be extinct again and it all be for nothing? There are questions that we as humans can’t possibly know the answer to.

    In my opinion, cloning is just wrong. I think it’s unethical. I think it’s playing God. I think it’s dangerous. I don’t think we should be playing with fire because eventually we will get burned. Things are the way they are for a reason and I believe we should let things be as they are.

    [645]

46. I don’t think that it is unethical to bring an extinct species back on the map of life, but on the other hand, I do think that it would be much better environmentally, scientifically and economically to just leave things as is and focus more efforts towards the protection and rescue of endangered species. It could just have a negative effect that we are yet to see, i think that letting the nature balance its own issues is a much better option than trying to redirect it to a route that we think is better. # 645

47. I do believe that scientists should de-extinct animals from the past. The reason being is because there are so many animals that will be extinct in a few years from now. There is a story going around that in a few year tigers will be extinct. Knowing that such beautiful animals will no longer be on this planet is terrible. Unless scientists find a way to bring them back which will be great as long as they don’t bring the animals back for the wrong reasons. For example, scientists or businesses using the animals for experimenting or money reasons.
    I think morally it is ok to use technology to bring back animals that are extinct. The reason being is because that human beings are killing animals all the time. The hunt or experiment on animals when the animals don’t do anything to humans at all. I think it is a great to de-extinct animals because maybe the animals can contribute to land or other animals. It is morally the right thing to do.
    644

48. It’s interesting to consider the capability of “de-extinction”, however, we have to consider why these animals originally became extinct and whether or not we are submitting them to the same environments which originally caused their mass extinction. When bringing these extinct animals back, we should closely consider the genetic traits/lack of diversity which caused the initial extinction and the possible harm to the current animal populations which could be affected as a result..

    However, when considering the technology to essentially resurrect a now extinct species, one might believe that we could use this technology to repopulate our current endangered species. 996

49. I don’t think that we should some De-extinction of the now extinct species because it could hurt the environment. Our environment could hurt more if we do De- extinction. There would be so many questions. how would they be in our environment? what food would they eat? what would happen to the animals that around here today? I believe that the De-extinction animals could harm animals and maybe people that are around today. Some of the animals that are extinct are very dangerous and should not be brought back. There isn’t anywhere were those animals could go to. It is unethical to use technology to resurrect now extinct species because you don’t know how they could turn out, they won’t be the same as they were back in the day, the could be worse. I think species that are extincted should stay extinct because everything would change if you use technology to bring back animals.

50. Because I consider the human brain more advanced in potentiality than we think nowadays, I would say yes because I would like to see what full potentials and phenomenons our thinking, science, and technology could create; however, considering my personal values on life itself I’d have to disagree with the process only because of 3rd and 4th valid points made by the opposing argument. An then I begin to think what would be the ulterior motive behind resurrecting the extinct, especially a mammoth? to capitalize on its fur/wool and or tusks? or even for the sport of hunting? ethically speaking I do not see myself resonating with the idea of de-extincting.

    #995

51. Writing this my inner-nerd is kicking and screaming at the thought of de-extinction – of watching animals you can only read of in books or see as CGI in movies run around your neighborhood. But then I remember there already isn’t room for other animals to run around our neighborhoods. Animals are literally shunned from any place of human habitation other than a zoo. On top of that, we already have hand-fulls and hand-fulls of animals on the brink of extinction – shouldn’t we be more worried on keeping them on this world than bringing others back from peace? No, I do not think, at the current state of the world, it is ethical or even logical to de-extinct species. Maybe in a better time and better place of society – but now, no.
    Class #644

52. De-extinction sounds all together unethical to me. First of all I just didn’t find any of the arguments for de-extinction impressive, convincing, or the least bit compelling. However, the facts are interesting. The fact is that scientists could not completely recreate the exact DNA of an extinct animal. Therefore, there is a risk involved with creating an unknown species. Furthermore, isn’t this just evolution and life cycles. As environment and all of it’s living beings change and evolve, so too do the demands of our natural state. The fact of the matter is that some of the creatures that are now extinct, are so because we wanted them that way, perhaps there is existence was more of a detriment. I am all for advancing in science and ways to improve our quality of life and perhaps longevity, but there is a line. Where we draw that line has yet to be determined.

53. The resurrection of extinct animals is a topic that deserves a bit of thought. There are arguments to both sides: Do we genetically modify a new species with the current DNA that is available to scientists or do we simply let the extinct animals remain what they are- extinct. There are a slew of factors that have to be taken into account before something like this could happen.

    Parties in favor of bringing back extinct animals argue that it could restore biodiversity, young people of this generation would have the opportunity to see these animals which could in turn create a new interest in the environment, and bringing back some of these animals could help restore some of the ecological diversity that could have been lost with extinction. Although the idea seems almost romantic, what can be done to ensure that these animals will not face another extinction?

    There are several factors on the opposite end of the argument that believe it would cause more devastation to our environment if these animals were to be reintegrated. These animals are extinct for a reason and some in part are due to devastation done by humans alone. In our current environmental state not much is being done by the world as a whole to ensure survival of the animals that are currently living or near extinction. How would it be ethically correct to potentially bring in a new species that has a high risk to be neglected yet again by the harmful behavior of humans? Secondly, where will these animals live? With the disappearance of these species, the environment that they once lived in suffered major changes. Therefore, there would absolutely be no place for these animals to live other than in a zoo. The amount of money that would be spent on housing these animals in a zoo could be used for the animals we already have. However, environmental factors aren’t of substantial importance to the world, so how could de-extinction ever be successful? The animals brought back would be genetically modified and could potentially become an invasive species on the animals already in existence.

    It could be concluded that the reintegration of these animals into our current world could have a more devastating effect than a positive one.

54. Bringing a species back from extinction is definitely thrilling but it has both positive and negative outcomes. If scientists do choose to save a species, the species may not thrive. Rushing into re-introducing extinct species could be disruptive for ecosystems. If the re-introduced species would have to spend their lives in zoos, I would not be in favor of bringing back extinct species. If we can simply revive and restore extinct species, a decrease in motivation from conservation efforts to prevent extinction could occur. Pursuing de-extinction could undermine the moral lessons of extinction at such a critical time in our environmental history. In my opinion, if de-extinction would cause more harm to environments and animals than good, scientists should steer clear of de-extinction. Humans need to take responsibility of the extinction of species because we are the main cause of it, but I believe we need to take action in a different way. By not supporting organizations that use animals for entertainment, by not purchasing products that are tested on animals, by becoming vegan or vegetarian, and by staying informed about animals and their habitats but not invading their personal living space, we can help prevent animal extinction.
    #995

55. There are different causes responsible for species extinction. If humans feel an obligation to bring back species that extinct because of humans’ acts, then it is a selfish reason to bring them back. The society didn’t change over the years. Today, there are people hunting down endangered species even though they know they can cause the extinction of those. Instead of bringing back what has been gone for decades, scientist should focus on how to protect the rest of the species we have left. Another reason why we shouldn’t bring extinct species such as the mammoth back is the lack of DNA of this specie. As the experts mentioned, they don’t have enough DNA to create the actual specie, so they would have to use other animals to create something close looking as a mammoth. This is another selfish reason that proves that society only cares about the fact that they can create a species from a basic cell.
    It is absolutely unethical to play with animals de-extinction. The natural environment is not capable to protect those species, and it would only cause their death over some amount of time. People have caused such damage to the nature that today’s species are fighting for their habitats and lives. I could use an example such as: Is it ethical for parents to put their child into a burning house? Let’s ask the same question about the animals: Is it ethical for scientist (parents’ of the de-extinct species) to put their animals (babies) into today’s environment? Finally it is not ethical for people to improvise in creating life without the proper supply such as DNA.

56. I feel that this could eb a good thing in some ways if it is a creature that we use to have and now our environment is suffering without having that creature at this point and time. But at the same time i think we need to be casreful with what we are doing. We are creating this creature and we dont know what is going to happen in the future is it going to mess with us more because we now have made a modified version of that animal and it may make them crazy or mean or just like what happened in jurassic park. We may not be able to handle what we have made. I think it would be great to be able to see these animals again and be able to live in a world where they have been saved but i feel that ethically we need to make sure it is a safe thing to do before we start spitting these things out here and there.

57. I do not think it would be a good idea to bring back the wooly mammoth. It just seems completely impractical. Yes, it sad that they went extinct but what purpose would they server if they brought them back? Also what harm could they produce to the environment if they are brought. They would pretty much be an invasive species because the environment is no longer used to support these creatures.
    The reasons to bring them back just seem like poor ideas to go through with the decision. Yes, we may have killed them long ago but so what. Many other species have died out through causes that were not us; does this mean we should put the cause of their extinction on trial? No it does not. Species go extinct and that is nature for you. It will always happen as long as we exist.

58. I do not agree that we should pursue the de-extinction of some now extinct species. That type of research and work has taken and would take more time and tremendous amount money. The research would most likely be done at universities and advanced learning institutions and paid for by way of research grants. I wouldn’t object to this concept nearly as strongly if there weren’t more pressing needs.

    I feel that we should focus our research and academic efforts toward the betterment of mankind and society. I fail to see how this pursuit meets that criterion. I’d much rather see the technology that we have and are developing focused toward for finding cures for cancer, addiction, diabetes, mental illness, autism, down syndrome and other medical issues. Once all those have been done, I think we should focus our efforts on the care and welfare of our veterans, the orphaned, the aged, and those experiencing homelessness. Maybe after those needs have been met, I might be persuaded to support this concept, however I highly doubt it.

59. De-extinctions is a interesting topic. I think we should not bring back the species that are extinct. The extinction of the species were somehow caused by the humans. Even if we bring them back, they might be destroyed again like they were before. People could be killing the species just for human purposes. Our present environment might not be suitable for them to live as it has been changed from the time they were alive.

60. Hi There,
    It is my belief that we should not be resurrecting extinct species, we should not be going against Mother Nature. Although humans have been responsible for the extinction of several animals it is not the obligation of humans to resurrect those animals. Instead it is the obligation of the human population to prevent extinction of animals that can be prevented. I agree that the animals who have become extinct could not live in the current environment successfully. Take Dinosaurs for example; when they roamed the earth there were not this many people in the world they were the dominant species, now there are millions of people on earth, cities have been created to house all the people on earth, where would these resurrected dinosaurs live?
    I do not believe it would be ethical for scientist to resurrect animals. I think that would be the start of something that could grow, and going against Mother Nature could send the eco-system into a tail spin. If we are resurrecting animals, where would the line would be drawn? Would scientist start to create humans? Curiosity is good but there is always the chance of becoming overly curious and creating unforeseen problems.

61. When discussing if we can bring a species back to life or not, we have to discuss where their environment would be. Like the article said, the Woolly Mammoths would live in the Arctic, like they used to about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch. Even if they can live in the Arctic, can they live on their own or will they have to be placed in a special zoo. Their environment and where they used to live is not what it used to be, over the last million years the environment has evolved. Not only did the environment change, but their food supply has also changed.

    I believe if you bring them back for a specific reason, like bringing back the passenger pigeon because of all the benefits for the environment, then it wouldn’t be a bad idea, plus it hasn’t been extinct for that long, only a about 100 years, but bringing back an extinct animal just so it can live its life behind a cage on display for the rest of the world to see. It’s also like playing god in a since, “…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should”(Jurassic Park, 1993), If you can really figure out how to bring something back from extinction, where do you draw the line? What else are the scientists going to want to bring back?

62. I can see the possibilities and potential of both sides. To be able to bring back the dead is a huge scientific step. Imagine if scientists could bring back the thousands of species of birds that have gone extinct and how that would impact the forests and we could produce more trees which in the long run would help our planet. Humans have made many species become extinct because, of our invasive habits. If we can bring back some species then the biodiversity would boost the ecosystem and in turn our planet would thrive more. Though not all species should roam the earth again.
    Some animals are extinct for a reason. Say scientists did bring back something like a Woolly Mammoth where would they put it and how would it survive. Would it become an aggressive, invasive species. These are questions that need to be asked. With that in mind why spend all the money to try and bring back then dead when the other living species need to be protected. I do believe that to an extent it’s ethical to bring back certain species like lizards or birds but big animals like the Woolly Mammoth have no place in the 21st century. We have to focus on saving the almost extinct species not the ones that are already gone.

63. The moral of all stories about cloning, Creating AI, and ruling over creations is that it’s not our job to play god. It usually backfires against the creator, with many events mirroring the new and old testaments, it is obvious that man is not satisfied with living and needs to conquer, or discover new knowledge. When Albert Einstein helped create the atomic bomb, it was science. He wanted to create the bomb, he wanted to discover how to make it, and how it functioned. Afterwards he was distraught with his creation.
    Mankind is not meant to be dabbling with the mystery of creation, as we will never stop, even when all is discovered, there will still be the need of discovery. It could be equated to man kinds view of a nuclear holocaust, usually caused by the lack of thinking about the future, and thinking in the present. When gifted an opportunity like this, it is better to preserve the future than to escape the present. What could be next, human cloning? Creating armies of genetically modified humans? The future must be taken into consideration.

64. In nearly any situation in the past where man has attempted to “play God” or be the creator, it has had negative effect. The proof is found not only in mutilated animals that are tested on, but in our foods, being genetically modified also. Tomatoes and corn containing human modification are damaging enough, let alone creating a woolly mammoth? For what reason? To repent from what we’ve done to this planet? That’s a sad attempt. We will surely kill the species, as we already have for many extinct animals. Also, woolly mammoths have absolutely no relevance or need in today’s environment.

    While the carrier pigeon is useful and had an impact on the environment, it too will be yet again killed by humans by either deforestation or climate change. There is no reason to bring animals that have already gone extinct back into our poisonous world. Beyond the fact that it is unethical and extremely inhumane to create our own version of nature’s animals, it would only lead to a domino affect causing humans to create all sorts of animals and genetic modifications. Soon, people would be selecting eye color and hair type for their babies. In this situation, the phrase “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” is accurate.

65. Ethics Professor Vaughan
    WC: 272
    This idea of de- extinction is very fascinating. It would be pretty cool to bring back an animal that is extinct back to life, but a Wooley Mammoth? I have to do a little more research on how this is going to benefit us the people, or the environment. So I read in the article that we were the cause of the extinction of the mammoth and we are morally obligated to the fix the damage. I don’t think bringing the mammoth will have any sort of benefit to us at all. Where is going to live, there is really no place to for the mammoth to live, there is no where cold enough in the world. Let’s say we end up bringing it back to life, how is going to know what to eat, would we have to train all of them?
    In my opinion, if we are going to bring back an extinct animal, it should be one that is going to benefit us and the environment. Maybe even not bring them back at all. I think it is going to harm the environment, they can become mutated and maybe even threaten the human race. What if they start eating other animals that are already being ate? This can even cause some shortage of food and cause more animals to become extinct. The earth is completely different then it was when the animals were alive. It is not a good idea, we should just let the animals rest in peace. It is for our own good and for the good of the environment and food chain.

66. I do not believe we should bring back extinct speices. Right now, their extinsction has caused many changes to their environment and the way other animals have adapted to those environments. If we bring them back, they would not be able to survive in their original intended habitats because it is not the same as it was when the were living. It would disrupt the whole flow of the ecosystem; food would become scarcer, there would be more competition among animals, and the animals that are currently there have a higher chance of becoming exinct because the resurected speicies is taking all their resources.
    Also, if these speicies are brought back, we do not know what kind of effect it would have on them. Scientists have studied these animals for decades so they understnad how they work and what they need to survive, but these would not be the same animals they’ve studied. They would be mutations of that. We do not know how being in a new environment will affect them. And also making the population have diversity so they can continue to breed will also be an issue if they are all being mutated from the same gene. Just because we can do something, does not always mean that we should and I think this is now of those cases.

67. The extinction of certain species is certainly a tragedy. Some have affected our food chain while others haven’t affected it much. I believe in “survival of the fittest.” If an animal is extinct, let it be. Who are we to place our hands on this and try to resurrect a species that we likely placed our hands in to begin with and made them become extinct by hunting them. Creating them again will only make humans want to hunt them again for sport, so we would be making animals just to kill them in the end. It is completely immoral.
    Another thing to think about is how can we be so sure that what we create will be very similar to the real thing? We may use certain cloning technology to try and mimic the animal, but the DNA will never fully match and the parts that don’t match may be vital to its existence or well being. As in the Jurassic Park series, mistakes will be made in trying to create the mammoth and lives may possibly be taken as a result. Is it ethical to even try our hand in this with the possibilities of how wrong the experiments can go? Who are we as simple human beings to “play God” as some would say?

68. The idea of creating, or re-creating, the extinct species is definitely appealing. Our knowledge and technology have advanced so much that we think we can start playing G-d. In my opinion, besides satisfying the grand curiosity, this project is not going to make much good. Even if we succeed, which is still questionable, genetic diversity within the same species is still required for the animals to be able to breed and maintain sufficient for survival population on their own. So far, according to the article, it is not possible. Moreover, the recreated animals will be genetically different from their extinct prototypes. This aspect makes de-extinction more of a reckless game because there is no way to predict the outcome for sure. In this case, I do not see how it is ethical to spend money on the unattainable goal when we have so many real-life problems at hand like poverty and morbid diseases.
    Proponents of the idea hoping to restore biodiversity and ecosystems that have been lost together with the extinct species. The intention is really noble. However, many times species disappear because the ecosystems become damaged and ruined. Mostly, such a damage is the result of human activity. Yet, I do not understand how the recreation of the lost ecosystems will be done if in their places cities, roads, and industrial parks were built. I believe that now it is more pressing and more productive to protect and support the species that still exist but are on the brink of extinction.

69. The research and technology has progressed and continues to progress discovering many remarkable information. The ethical issue in “cloning” and creating new species genetically engineered seems like a great idea as it would restore the ecosystem and revive many animals that have been extinct. There are many advantages and disadvantages equally in recreating the species. Though personally, I think it would have more disadvantages to continue with the recreation of the mammal. There still needs to many aspects to be considered such as if it would survive in the environment, if it could harm the ecosystem or if the other species would be harmed, if they would be dangerous or not.
    And combining the DNA of mammal Wolly mammoth and elephant could result in problems with surviving and adapting. With the climate changes, and genetically engineering the species and cloning can harm the existing species. I think instead of reviving the species that have already became extinct, scientists should attempt to save the animals who are in danger of becoming extinct. Recently, I read an article containing information and research on cloning and the ethical issues are very delicate. The debates could go on for a long time, so its beneficial to focus on reducing the dangers of creating a safe environment and reducing human errors which would danger the animals to go extinct. There are also dangers of the animals becoming dangerous as they would have hard time adapting to the environment after being raised in an environment where its assured they can survive (but would they be able to after leaving after them in their expected environment). So I think there should be more research and information produced before taking any further take.

70. The idea of cloning or de-extinction of animals is very interesting to me. I of course would love for myself and children to be able to see a mammoth in real life. It would definitely be a once in a lifetime thing and an extreme advance for science. However, just because I want something doesn’t make it ethically correct. I agree with the scientists and people opposing this. I feel we already have too many animals without proper shelter, food, medical and we have a lot of animal welfare issues on our hands. To introduce new species, especially genetically modified species to the world, where would we keep them? Would they be treated as lab rats and kept in uncomfortable cages and tested on? That is no life for an animal. I think we need to focus on creating more care for the animals we do currently have on our planet and spend our money on making sure these current species do not go extinct. People are always looking for the next best thing or most interesting thing but don’t seem to think of the negatives. We have no space, environment is not set like it was back when the mammoths were alive. Global warming could also be a factor.

    All in all, we should postpone this idea and focus our efforts more on the current species declining on our planet. All this time and effort trying to resurrect something for amusement seems like a waste of resources and energy to me. There are so many things here science could be assisting with first.

Comments are closed.