Apr 6 2013: Thank you for clarifying.
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.
Mar 16 2013: This aspect was my concern as well with this project. Lets say they are successful at bringing to life a Passenger Pigeon, and its viable. Lets presume further that they bring a bunch more into the world, until they have a number that could be genetically self sustaining.
Now lets also stretch it to where as Brand says, we enlist other birds of a close variety to teach the migratory habits to these newbs. Essentially what you would end up with would be a flock of huge numbers of migrating birds with this genetic makeup flying thousands of miles annually, through how many different and diverse ecosystems on its route.
Now imagine the impact of either a de-extinct or a genetically 'close' bird population on each and every ecosystem.
Lets flip the coin; If we do not allow them to be set free for these kinds of reasons, but allow them to be created as genetic lab rats in controlled environments ...
I gotta ask ...
whats the point?
Mar 16 2013: Thank you for your lesson on microbials. Its a very complex subject, but I do understand your point. I think your asking if the animal created in this process will have the necessary bacteria to survive? Lets consider further that the host for the Passenger Pigeon may be a chicken. Will your concern at the microbial level be affected by this?
Perhaps a reader has more information on this.
Mar 15 2013: Thank you for your thoughts and for joining the conversation Yubal.
I would respond as I did below regarding the scientist perspective towards discovery.
It is our scientists job to continuously reach far ahead and wonder ... what if? Can we? and How do I?
We will always hold a debt of gratitude to the work of science. If we lower the boom requiring them to consider every angle of ethical consideration regarding their work, they will not be able to reach ahead and find questions for themselves to answer. They would literally be tied down by limitation.
We need them to dream and test, and discover.
The earth is not flat, nor the center of the universe. We know this as it was science that proved it so, even though initial proponents of these ideas were persecuted. We need not persecute science for this discovery, but discuss the next step.
You ask; "is it the scientists common ambition to demonstrate their scientific abilities and achievements, regardless of the possible consequences of the de-extinction ?? "
I would answer ... yes. It is their job to work theoretically and practically towards realization of an idea. It is their job to disseminate data and report possibilities, and they did that in this case at TED. It is our job to balance values, morals and ethics, and determine how discoveries should be mainstreamed ... or not.
How should the world respond? What should be the format and who are the players involved to discuss how to proceed? That is the question.
Mar 15 2013: If I may respond in kind Christopher:
Why should we?
Without resorting to emotive based feelings of loss or grief for the extinct species, or as a response to feelings of responsibility for driving them to extinction in the first place, or even quoting non existent scientific proof that guarantees that biodiversity itself would be repaired if reintroduced ... why should we?
Not quite that simple is it? Some people are bound by fear, others by hope, is this the real debate?
Thanks for sounding in.
TEDCred score: +2.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
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.
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
A reply on Talk: Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
Now lets also stretch it to where as Brand says, we enlist other birds of a close variety to teach the migratory habits to these newbs. Essentially what you would end up with would be a flock of huge numbers of migrating birds with this genetic makeup flying thousands of miles annually, through how many different and diverse ecosystems on its route.
Now imagine the impact of either a de-extinct or a genetically 'close' bird population on each and every ecosystem.
Lets flip the coin; If we do not allow them to be set free for these kinds of reasons, but allow them to be created as genetic lab rats in controlled environments ...
I gotta ask ...
whats the point?
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
Perhaps a reader has more information on this.
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
I would respond as I did below regarding the scientist perspective towards discovery.
It is our scientists job to continuously reach far ahead and wonder ... what if? Can we? and How do I?
We will always hold a debt of gratitude to the work of science. If we lower the boom requiring them to consider every angle of ethical consideration regarding their work, they will not be able to reach ahead and find questions for themselves to answer. They would literally be tied down by limitation.
We need them to dream and test, and discover.
The earth is not flat, nor the center of the universe. We know this as it was science that proved it so, even though initial proponents of these ideas were persecuted. We need not persecute science for this discovery, but discuss the next step.
You ask; "is it the scientists common ambition to demonstrate their scientific abilities and achievements, regardless of the possible consequences of the de-extinction ?? "
I would answer ... yes. It is their job to work theoretically and practically towards realization of an idea. It is their job to disseminate data and report possibilities, and they did that in this case at TED. It is our job to balance values, morals and ethics, and determine how discoveries should be mainstreamed ... or not.
How should the world respond? What should be the format and who are the players involved to discuss how to proceed? That is the question.
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
Why should we?
Without resorting to emotive based feelings of loss or grief for the extinct species, or as a response to feelings of responsibility for driving them to extinction in the first place, or even quoting non existent scientific proof that guarantees that biodiversity itself would be repaired if reintroduced ... why should we?
Not quite that simple is it? Some people are bound by fear, others by hope, is this the real debate?
Thanks for sounding in.
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?
A reply on Conversation: Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?