- David Johnson
- Kamloops
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
Stewart Brand and his colleagues are at the biotech precipice of reviving extinct species. The Revive and Restore project plans to not only bring species back but restore them to the wild, as well as protect currently endangered species.
I don't think any of us will have a problem with the latter, this discussion is focused on the primary goal; reintroduction of extinct species. We are not talking about dinosaurs here, but the Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, Heath Hen, European Aurochs, Bucardo, The Taz Tiger, etc.
Up for debate here: Should we?
Where we can all appreciate the science being developed, we must discuss the implications of initiating projects like this. I submit we need to discuss this on behalf of the existing species that we have, as well as for the animals that are lost.
Some questions to consider:
Do we value the argument that we should 'undo the harm' that humans have caused in the past, due to over-hunting or destruction of habitat? Should we rewrite or undo history?
Many of these species have not been in the natural environment for 100 years. It is fair to say that the natural predators or prey of these species, the plants or insect life they feed on, the environments they roam through ... have altered in their absence. Has the cycle of the earth, moved on without them?
We have a long history of experiencing what can happen when biodiversity is altered by introducing a species not indigenous to the area in question. Cane Toads in Australia, Grey Squirrel in Europe or the Gypsy Moth.
Is this project actually an introduction of a species back into an environment that may not be able to sustain it as it once did?
Even though we can grieve the lost of the Dodo, should we bring it back at all costs?
Or as Daniel Chan asks below;
how can we effectively simulate the effects of introducing pre-existing species to the environment before actually doing so?
What other Questions should we ask?
CECILIA BELTRAN
Lee Park
Ray Yelle
A species in decent numbers was a component part of a larger ecosystem when it thrived. The ecosystem adapts when a component species becomes extinct, so there's no way to re-introduce a species the the literal sense once enough time has passed. At best they would be a disruption to the ecosystem they are introduced back into, and definitely not a repair to it.
From what I understand, any attempt at recreating an extinct creature is still just an approximation, DNA-wise, because of the influence of the hosts involved. Even if you could revive a "perfect" male and female from separate source stock, re-establishing enough numbers to maintain viability in the wild would involve so much inbreeding that the resulting gene pool would be compromised anyway.
Higher-order mammals like mammoths may have had behaviors that were taught, not carried by instinct, and without the learned traits that characterized the species at its peak, what would we be restoring but a template without the proper instructions?
Katy Tuckwell
My main queries are:
Looking at the Red List which would one choose? What criteria will be used to decide and who will make those decisions?
How far back do we go? Do we know enough about an animal that went extinct 50 years ago to know what impact its re-introduction will have? What about 100 years, 500? If re-introductions are successful will it not be tempting to stretch further back into the comparatively unknown?
Life ain't what it used to be: plants and animals have recently diversified with all sorts of unforseen consequences (cane toads, zebra mussels, water primrose). Will we know enough about the ecosystems the re-introductions require to be certain of success for them in our rapidly changing world? Will we know enough to be sure of the impact they will have on other life forms in those ecosystems?
Will we be kept informed when re-introductions occur? I do not know if "we have the information needed to assess the potential consequences of this science". I feel this will inevitably go ahead, but I sincerely hope we do indeed "undo the harm" rather than throw back the lid of pandora's box.
Sharan Soumitry
Sharan Soumitry
i think we should re install the extinct species to harness the environment.
also its important to create a balance in the environment.
i personally as a shooter and use a lot of firearms and guns and ammunition.
earlier every body would prefer hunting..
but nowadays its different.
where i live in india.. there is a lot of hunting which happens..
in competitive sport only eurpoeans manufacturer electronic targets.. and now i found this company which is building.. one and using technology we not only divert the attention of extinction but also give a root cause needs to be addressed..
when ppl have affordable things at home to train on and practice.. the use of guns on animals will be automatically reduced.. its important to channelise the energy
http://www.Elitescorer.com
cameron barnett
Connie Harris
David Johnson
cameron barnett
In answer to your actual question, "should we rewrite history, probably not but then pandoras box is wide open and cannot be closed, we can either fear change or embrace it"
David Johnson
Your point brings up the question regarding "we can either fear change or embrace it";
Does that mean we should not maintain control of our choices as to how change occurs?
- We burn oil, even though we know the consequences, be it right or wrong.
- We develop medicine to save lives, which we believe is right.
We need not fear change, but we should make informed choices regarding change, that's what this conversation is all about.
Do we have the information needed to assess the potential consequences of this science?
That's not fear, just good science.
cameron barnett
David Johnson
mary T
I vote for the carrier pigeon! Let flocks darken the skies!
Bill Torbitt
Eric Marvin
First of all , if they manage to resurrect / revive the extinct animals , don't you think that they will be able to prevent and avoid the endangered species to become extinct? I mean that will be really fantastic because there will be no more endangered species because they can easily be revived.
Secondly , I think by reviving this EXTINCT animals means that we and our next generation can see for their self the most ancient animals and they will know what the animals in the past really looks like and their behaviour and many more to learn.
Then don't you think this will have a big impact to the economics side? because as we know the one that killing this endangered animals or even the extinct animals. People hunt them because of their beauty, some because of their horns , some because of their skins, some even for their meats, well I say if we can revive this animals afterwards then there will be no fear of extinction and we can sell it to rich people to earn profits to help the country. Isn't that right ladies and gentleman?
Well I think I've already provided you with all the thoughts and arguments in my mind for this time being. Thank you very much !!!!
Joseph Middaugh
Now as a species we are beginning to our limits to what we can and cannot control, seen and unseen,micro or macro, we are doing so at exponential speed in multitudes of arenas? How long do you think the shelf life of Google glass will be? How long do you think the eight track players shelf life was?
I think of all the innovations and advancements that have come with precursors and warnings, and think of the neigh sayers and laugh at how fast we become hind sightseers.
Joseph Middaugh
Secondly if the is any hope for survival of the human species beyond this planets multitude of ecosystems we need to know how to safely implement species together like soups in a recipe here before we can consider doing it elsewhere like Mars in the next century. The ability to resuscitate DNA of an individual does not amaze me, the ability to safely create and reintroduce an entire species to modern times will be a phenomenal process to witness for us as a species to know what is truly possible.
This coupled with the recent discovery of the Higgs Particle basically should have numerous theologians scratching their collective heads and asses wondering which side of the spiritual coin to stand on? Continue a life emulating a concept of God that seems irrelevant, or become Gods and learn to create our own Garden of Edens? Both pursuits are valid, however, I usually am rendered silent more often with science than religion.
Just a thought,
Joseph
Jaikevin Thomas
Jai
Fred Lanisake
In the second movie, they explore an island of free roaming dinosaurs. Originally the dinosaurs were designed to be lycopene-dependent, the idea being that they would die if they weren't administered lycopene by the scientists. The surprise was that lycopene is found in most plants, and the dinosaurs had flourished. (science is full of surprises)
I really do think that movie was brushing upon a facet of reality. I can see a scientist, amazed by what he knows so far, dive into a project that opens a can of worms, at worst a pandora's box for the planet. In Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm emphasized that dinosaurs had their time and would be out of place today. He was a proponent of chaos theory - the idea that the smallest changes in initial conditions can yield extremely different outcomes in the end, rendering long-term predictions impossible. With science, we find ourselves in control of things we couldn't dream of a generation ago, and we're going to dive right in and screw things up. We can discuss whether or not we should, but we can't stop the wave of technology. All that's possible will be explored, exploited, sold and monopolized. People will be controlled and will control others. New beings and creatures of all shapes and sizes will be created. The law will be far behind the technology, and enforcement impossible. The best we can do is understand it.
art haschak
Scott Cleaves
Steve C
Also of concern is what they're gonna do with this recently unearthed King of England - is he gonna want his position back?
David Hubbard
.
Scott Cleaves
Sam McCrone
With technology allowing accurate and speedy communication in the developed World an open debate would speed this process up by offering people a chance to discuss their fears and misconceptions in relation to the above.
Science is the true leader of all nations and the challenge for mankind must be to better understand the mistakes of the past and the development of our future.
Religion, money and power are aids to survival, mankind is in great need of a more balanced approach to his problems than the one offered by politicians. If we believe there is good in the reintroduction of extinct species then we will embrace the move, if we think we can benefit from it then we will endorse it!
David Boyer
Darren Duckworth
Our focus should be waking up as a species. To save what still remains & stop our population growth. Only then, when we're in harmony with the rest of the natural world, can we discuss whether or not to reintroduce what was lost.
Mark Kane
Resurrecting the carrier pigeon still seems to me a self-indulgence. Devote the same resources to ending hunger and ending the carnage it wreaks via epigenetics on young minds, perhaps even future generations.
David Purkiss
In my opinion, this is an attempt to treat a symptom of a greater issue, one which I would rather resources and efforts were spent on resolving. I think possession of this technology would one day be potentially beneficial but at the moment we are simply not ready.
I also agree with some of the other comments that, as humans, it is irresponsible for us to play with things we don't fully understand. For example, by a simple change in perception we can see how, perhaps, we have in fact benefited other species on this planet by eradicating their natural enemies which may cause a chain reaction in an ecosystem, thereby providing opportunity for other species and even enforcing the Darwinian "survival of the fittest".
The point being, we are asking the wrong questions and need to start asking the right questions. We know we can do it. Whether we should do it or not, we probably will anyway. So perhaps the correct question is whether doing this will truly benefit and serve humanity as well as the planet? Is this in our best interests?
P.S. I've never considered some these points before but I would like to accredit Dr John F. DeMartini with new insight.
Mark Schuster
Penelope Applegarth