They're supposed to be extinct

[arthwollipot]

Forget whether or not it will be possible. The real question is "should we"? A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.

By that argument we shouldn't try to conserve anything. Anything that goes extinct does so for a reason. There are valid ethical arguments about cloning exticnt animals, or any animals for that matter, but the "they're supposed to be extinct" argument just doesn't cut it.

I disagree.

We'll leave it at that.

I've separated this out from the original thread because it's somewhat off-track. Bujin has said that we shouldn't consider cloning extinct creatures, because they are supposed to be extinct. Cuddles has extended the argument to include creatures that aren't extinct yet, and suggested that this means we shouldn't try to conserve endangered species, since they'e also "supposed" to be extinct - or nearly extinct, anyway.

Then bujin disagreed - but I'm not sure exactly which part you are disagreeing with - the "we shouldn't conserve anything" part or the "the 'they're supposed to be extinct' argument doesn't cut it" part.

So, bujin, with your permission I'd like to take this a bit further. Can you first clarify which part of Cuddles' post you were disagreeing with?

[Broes]

Oke lets follow Bujin's argument and demolish all hostitals...

People who are sick are supposed to die anyway.... :rolleyes:

[SomeGuy]

We are all supposed to die.

[Mojo]

"In the long run, we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes

[Mojo]

A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.


This isn't an ethical issue; it's "we shouldn't play God".

[Cuddles]

This isn't an ethical issue; it's "we shouldn't play God".

Why not?

[Normal Dude]

Because you'll end up getting eaten by velociraptors.

[Diamond]

Because you'll end up getting eaten by velociraptors.

Especially if you use a GOTO

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/goto.png

[Normal Dude]

Especially if you use a GOTO


Heh. I liked the one the author did with the physics test and velociraptors.

Oops, I am derailing arthwollipot's thread. Taking my leave. :)

[Diamond]

Heh. I liked the one the author did with the physics test and velociraptors.

Oops, I am derailing arthwollipot's thread. Taking my leave. :)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/substitute.png

[athon]

The 'we are/not supposed to' argument is often heard, but never understood. My thought is 'according to who?'.

Things 'supposed' to be extinct doesn't make sense. Some things might go extinct on account of their inability to survive in one environment, but if you bring them back and they survive as a species a controlled environment, that reasoning no longer washes.

The argument then reduces to one of deciding what is natural; an endless game of semantics that don't really mean a great deal.

Athon

[Cuddles]

Things 'supposed' to be extinct doesn't make sense. Some things might go extinct on account of their inability to survive in one environment, but if you bring them back and they survive as a species a controlled environment, that reasoning no longer washes.

This is my problem with it. How is there any meaningful difference between cloning and extinct species and keeping it in a controlled environment and keeping an existing species in a controlled environment to stop it going extinct? In my opinion there is no difference. If conservation is acceptable then there can be nothing inherently wrong in cloning extinct species.

Of course, there are certainly ethical issues involved, especially for social animals where thousands of years worth of knowledge and culture will be missing. For example, a cloned Neanderthal would have no knowledge of their tools, language or burial customs and would rely entirely on what we taught it. It may be possible to clone a whole family group and have a reserve where they will never suspect anything, but they will be missing a huge amount compared with what Neanderthals actually had. On the other hand, would cloned Dodos even notice? If you cleared an island of rats and reintroduced Dodos, would there be any difference from how they used to live? If not, what is unethical about doing it?

The important things is, it is not the cloning itself that is ethical or unethical, it is the consequences afterwards, and these are specific to the situation. Cloning itself is not inherently good or bad. I think the most important question is "What is the point?". Cloning Dodos might not be unethical, but would we actually learn anything from it? We could almost certainly learn a lot from cloning Neanderthals, but there are big ethical problems in doing so. We certainly shouldn't go about cloning things indescriminately, but we also shouldn't reject the whole idea out of hand.

[chillzero]

I think some people believe that previous extinctions are different from 'modern' ones where man has been mainly responsible for the destruction of a species, as opposed to the species innate inability to continue in a given environment.

[cyborg]

I think some people believe that previous extinctions are different from 'modern' ones where man has been mainly responsible for the destruction of a species, as opposed to the species innate inability to continue in a given environment.

Which is a nonsense of course - other species are as much a part of the environment as anything else - a fact that seems to get lost on people. Things have to evolve to exist alongside other organisms - this will shape them.

From a completely anantropocentric view what humans are doing to influence the extinction of other organisms is as much a natural process as climate change. The influence does, however, have a particular character which does differentiate it.

Now as to the consequences of extinction the only way one can then view it is from an anthropocentric view - since trying to view it from an ananthropocentric view would lead to a paradox! (We'd have to 'naturalise' humans then conclude whatever humans do is natural therefore we have to take an anthropocentric view to discuss what the consequences of human involvement in extinction are!)

As such we cannot say there is any 'right' or 'wrong' as to what the consequences turn out to be: we can only frame it in terms of what we want to achieve.

So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?

[chillzero]

Which is a nonsense of course - other species are as much a part of the environment as anything else - a fact that seems to get lost on people. Things have to evolve to exist alongside other organisms - this will shape them.


I agree. :)

[Loss Leader]

Blah, blah, blah.

Velociraptors are cool!

Click this link (http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=Jurassic_Park&quote=jpark.txt&file=jpark.wav) and try to tell me you don't want to clone some velociraptors.

[strathmeyer]

This isn't an ethical issue; it's "we shouldn't play God".

Which god shouldn't we play? Isn't "we shouldn't play god" an ethic?

[a.real.girl]

As such we cannot say there is any 'right' or 'wrong' as to what the consequences turn out to be: we can only frame it in terms of what we want to achieve.

So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?

I like this framing better, as it works the idea that we're looking at it from a human-centric point of view. I understand that is inherent in being human and doing the manipulation, but that doesn't mean we're right.

-A

ETA: This is, of course, what cyborg said much more eloquently. I was just saying I agree, but that didn't really come through. D'oh.

[bujin]

I've separated this out from the original thread because it's somewhat off-track. Bujin has said that we shouldn't consider cloning extinct creatures, because they are supposed to be extinct. Cuddles has extended the argument to include creatures that aren't extinct yet, and suggested that this means we shouldn't try to conserve endangered species, since they'e also "supposed" to be extinct - or nearly extinct, anyway.

Then bujin disagreed - but I'm not sure exactly which part you are disagreeing with - the "we shouldn't conserve anything" part or the "the 'they're supposed to be extinct' argument doesn't cut it" part.

So, bujin, with your permission I'd like to take this a bit further. Can you first clarify which part of Cuddles' post you were disagreeing with?

Wow! I've hit a few nerves with my personal opinions, haven't I?

I said "we'll leave it at that" because I'm sick and tired of getting into these type of discussions.

Oke lets follow Bujin's argument and demolish all hostitals...

People who are sick are supposed to die anyway.... :rolleyes:

That is a truly, truly stupid thing to say and a really poor misrepresentation of my opinion.

I am not going to bother discussing my views if people are going to do this.

So, I'll state my opinion again as my final input to this thread.

I don't personally think it is a good idea to clone species that have gone extinct through natural reasons. I'll briefly say why I hold this opinion, and that since I am not a biologist, I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong.

The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Bringing back extinct species (providing, of course, they haven't gone extinct through our own stupidity) would surely upset the balance of the ecosystem. By bringing back one extinct species, you could be condemning another current species to extinction as the population grows.

Do we really have the right to do that?

As I say, I'm not a biologist, and I'm fully prepared to be told that I'm wrong. Call it a "gut feeling" if you will, but this is the reason why I hold my opinion on this matter.

[Mojo]

Isn't "we shouldn't play god" an ethic?


It isn't an ethical argument. It's effectively just saying "I don't like this" on a quasi-religious pretext.

[brodski]

It isn't an ethical argument. It's effectively just saying "I don't like this" on a quasi-religious pretext.

So what you mean is that it isn't a good ethical argument.
It is certainly a moral argument. :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

I just wish more people would apply bujin's thinking to disco.

[Loss Leader]

I just wish more people would apply bujin's thinking to disco.


Speaking of which, I've had this song (http://www.songagram.com/A_songAgram_For_You/iwanttokissyoualloverwav.htm) stuck in my head all day.

[Dogdoctor]

I think it is fine to bring back species to be placed in zoos and if we get enough of them perhaps start a breeding program and if we are sucessful then find some use for them other than a zoo. Perhaps dodos would be a good agricultural product, replacing chickens. Perhaps there is a niche in ecological systems that would benefit from reintroducing species. However we are a ways from being able to determine the effects on ecological systems (and a ways from being able to clone extinct animals.)

[ponderingturtle]

I think it is fine to bring back species to be placed in zoos and if we get enough of them perhaps start a breeding program and if we are sucessful then find some use for them other than a zoo. Perhaps dodos would be a good agricultural product, replacing chickens. Perhaps there is a niche in ecological systems that would benefit from reintroducing species. However we are a ways from being able to determine the effects on ecological systems (and a ways from being able to clone extinct animals.)

Dodo's from all reports where tough and greasy and pretty horrible tasting. People only ate them if faced with starvation.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't personally think it is a good idea to clone species that have gone extinct through natural reasons. I'll briefly say why I hold this opinion, and that since I am not a biologist, I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong.

The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Bringing back extinct species (providing, of course, they haven't gone extinct through our own stupidity) would surely upset the balance of the ecosystem. By bringing back one extinct species, you could be condemning another current species to extinction as the population grows.


So naturally introduced species from land bridges resulting in extinction "Good" species introduced by human action causing the extinction of a species "Bad"?

Also you are anthropomorphizing species in general. Species are neither smart nor stupid, they just are. Some are better adapted for changes, like rats and cockroaches for human environments compared to say moose, but it is not one being smarter than the other. It is chance.

[Dogdoctor]

Dodo's from all reports where tough and greasy and pretty horrible tasting. People only ate them if faced with starvation.

Thanks. I remember that now. I think we learned the same things about dodos. However I think that was wild dodos and commercially raised would be different. In commercial flocks you would eat them at a young enough age that they are tender and the flavor depends to large degree on the diet so it's possible that if they were fed a specific diet they would taste better. Of course it is likely that they are not very efficient at producing meat or eggs from the diet fed. Modern chickens are a highly efficient animal. They need only about a fourth the nutrients that the original stock needed to produce a pound of meat or eggs. And it is possible that no matter what they just don't appeal to consumers (taste or other reasons)

[JimBenArm]

This isn't an ethical issue; it's "we shouldn't play God".
I'm not a God, but I play one on TV.

[Normal Dude]

I don't personally think it is a good idea to clone species that have gone extinct through natural reasons. I'll briefly say why I hold this opinion, and that since I am not a biologist, I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong.

The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Bringing back extinct species (providing, of course, they haven't gone extinct through our own stupidity) would surely upset the balance of the ecosystem. By bringing back one extinct species, you could be condemning another current species to extinction as the population grows.

Do we really have the right to do that?

As I say, I'm not a biologist, and I'm fully prepared to be told that I'm wrong. Call it a "gut feeling" if you will, but this is the reason why I hold my opinion on this matter.

Bujin, in case you are still here, I have only one question for clarification. Are you objecting to the possibility of cloning a species out of extinction, and then re-introducing it to an ecosystem because it could become an invasive, exotic species? A good example of one of those would be zebra mussles in the Great Lakes.

I'm all for limited lab cloning for research purposes, maybe even putting them in zoos. As far as re-introducing them to an ecosystem, I think we'd have to be more careful with that.

[dakotajudo]

Modern chickens are a highly efficient animal. They need only about a fourth the nutrients that the original stock needed to produce a pound of meat or eggs.

Yes. And they suck. They are creatures that should not be. (and I say that having raised more than a few - after one season of the Cornish Whites I started getting more legacy breeds - Reds, Rock Cornish - scrawny and tough, but still ... )

And thinking on that, I've own several dogs; some also "creatures that should not be". I had pug - loved it, but what the hell were those guys smokin' when they bred for that? And a Dalmation? Skin diseases left and right and I had to give him pills to keep from dribbling (weak urinary sphincter).



The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Really? Or was it matter the the species zigged when the niche zagged. That is, is competition among species as important as adaptation to environment as an evolutionary driving force? Yeah, yeah, there's some overlap - better adapted species edge out less well adapted (or do they - do less well adapted specied evolve to become better adapted? Or do non-adapted species simply die out, then are replaced?) How do the total number of extinctions caused by local competition compare to number of extinctions drived by environmental change. What causes mass global extinctions?

On the other hand, we spend considerable resources (and displace a lot of native populations) keeping populations alive that would not otherwise survive - the pug, for example, or corn ...

[athon]

I said "we'll leave it at that" because I'm sick and tired of getting into these type of discussions.

Why? Because you're so convinced you're correct, you have nothing more to learn? Or because you're not so convinced by your own argument that you don't think you can phrase it in a way to convince us of your point?

Discussion is never futile if both sides feel they have something to offer and possibly something to learn.

I don't personally think it is a good idea to clone species that have gone extinct through natural reasons. I'll briefly say why I hold this opinion, and that since I am not a biologist, I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong.

Excellent. A good start. :)

The species currently alive on the fulfil their own little niches. They triumphed over earlier species in the grand competition for those little niches.

Bringing back extinct species (providing, of course, they haven't gone extinct through our own stupidity) would surely upset the balance of the ecosystem. By bringing back one extinct species, you could be condemning another current species to extinction as the population grows.

That has sound reasoning. However, is this the only course of action? Nobody suggested cloned species be simply shoved back into an ecosystem that resemebles theirs.

As I say, I'm not a biologist, and I'm fully prepared to be told that I'm wrong. Call it a "gut feeling" if you will, but this is the reason why I hold my opinion on this matter.

Well, 'gut feelings' are only worthwhile when unravelled and examined critically.

If this is the sole reasoning for your opinion, it is a good point but a narrow one in terms of the argument at hand.

Athon

[Dogdoctor]

Yes. And they suck. They are creatures that should not be. (and I say that having raised more than a few - after one season of the Cornish Whites I started getting more legacy breeds - Reds, Rock Cornish - scrawny and tough, but still ... )

And thinking on that, I've own several dogs; some also "creatures that should not be". I had pug - loved it, but what the hell were those guys smokin' when they bred for that? And a Dalmation? Skin diseases left and right and I had to give him pills to keep from dribbling (weak urinary sphincter).




Really? Or was it matter the the species zigged when the niche zagged. That is, is competition among species as important as adaptation to environment as an evolutionary driving force? Yeah, yeah, there's some overlap - better adapted species edge out less well adapted (or do they - do less well adapted specied evolve to become better adapted? Or do non-adapted species simply die out, then are replaced?) How do the total number of extinctions caused by local competition compare to number of extinctions drived by environmental change. What causes mass global extinctions?

On the other hand, we spend considerable resources (and displace a lot of native populations) keeping populations alive that would not otherwise survive - the pug, for example, or corn ...
Those purebred chickens are not the high tech chickens used to produce eggs or meat. They raise 2 lines of crossbred chickens which are then crossed together to get a superior chicken. They are healthier and faster growing and quite different from purebreds. Dog breeding has not progressed as much as livestock breeding probably due to a lack of financial incentive (most dog breeders don't make any money). The pug is not a species but a breed of dog (the species is dog). Dogs live in human households not displacing any animals that the owners didn't already displace.

[qayak]

Remember, the whole "We shouldn't play god" idea is also holding back stem cell research.

My own opinion is that there is no god so we wouldn't be playing god anyway. I suggest we play scientist and see what happens just for the sake of knowing. That doesn't mean we have to clone a heard of T-Rex but why not one?

Or we could clone a couple, take them to the local dogfights and have them eat every NFL idiot in attendance.

And let's face it, if you need to get some cocanuts across the ocean so that knights can pretend to ride horses, pteradactyls beat swallows handsdown!

[blutoski]

The converstion of a naturalistic observation into a normative rule is known as the naturalistic fallacy (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/irf.naturalistic.html).

As for wolley mammoths... humans killed them off; maybe we're obliged to at least try to bring them back?

[Normal Dude]

::snip:: As for wolley mammoths... ::snip::

Someone killed off Wolley??!!

[dakotajudo]

Those purebred chickens are not the high tech chickens used to produce eggs or meat. Yeah, I kinda mispoke - Rock Cornish is the hybrid line; Barred Rock was the line I preferred. It's been ten years since I raised chickens.

I dunno, one time I ordered a heavy assortment (like this http://www.mcmurrayhatchery.com/product/all_heavies.html ) but they must have slipped in some hybrids - at three weeks, they were twice the size of the rest, just sat in front of the feeder. After that, I just didn't order any whites or assortments, just stuck with Barred Rock and Rhode Island Red. That's how much the hybrids sucked, to me.

They raise 2 lines of crossbred chickens which are then crossed together to get a superior chicken.
You mean that two lines of purebred chickens are crossed to get the hybrid (crossbred) chicken. Or are you talking about a four-way crossing system - then you have 4 lines; two lines crossed to generate the parents of the final hybrid line? I would call the multiplier parents "lines".

They are healthier and faster growing and quite different from purebreds.
Faster growing, yes, but hardly healthier. Leg and joint problems, heart failure - they're not healthy enough to be raised as free-range chickens.

Dog breeding has not progressed as much as livestock breeding probably due to a lack of financial incentive (most dog breeders don't make any money).

Please. The reason dog breeds have problems is because of breed standards required by the various kennel clubs. Livestock producers won't suffer subpar offspring for the sake of conforming to some artificial type.

Dog breeding seems, at least in a few cases, to be going backward. Wasn't that long ago that the bulldog was a fairly athletic breed.

The pug is not a species but a breed of dog (the species is dog). You'll note, that when I referred to the pug, I was talking of populations, not species. There's a reason for that.

Dogs live in human households not displacing any animals that the owners didn't already displace.
Not really. You still have to feed the dogs, and that displaces something in the food chain.

And not all dogs live in households; mine go running with me and I can't say they haven't disturbed the local waterfowl populations. I'm pretty sure, though, they've kept the rabbits in check and seem to have knocked out the moles that were digging in the yard.

They'll catch a a bird or two, if it's damp. I don't catch birds, myself, and I haven't shot rabbits or any other critters in years.

Would coyotes have done has much as my dogs, I can't say. But my dogs have an advantage that coyotes don't have - my dogs get fed, regardless of their success at hunting; that's an advantage for surviving the winter. Plus they get immunized, wormed; they're healthier and live longer than their wild counterparts.

[Slimething]

Perhaps dodos would be a good agricultural product, replacing chickens.

http://peta-sucks.com/godscreatures1.jpg

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[bujin]

I'm all for limited lab cloning for research purposes, maybe even putting them in zoos. As far as re-introducing them to an ecosystem, I think we'd have to be more careful with that.

Why? Because you're so convinced you're correct, you have nothing more to learn? Or because you're not so convinced by your own argument that you don't think you can phrase it in a way to convince us of your point?

Discussion is never futile if both sides feel they have something to offer and possibly something to learn.

I think I already answered your first point about being "so convinced by my own argument".

That has sound reasoning. However, is this the only course of action? Nobody suggested cloned species be simply shoved back into an ecosystem that resemebles theirs.

There are ethical issues either way. Even if you don't reintroduce the animal into the ecosystem, you are only bringing it back to subject it to scientific testing, keeping it locked up for its whole life, subjecting it to a barrage of tests to see what makes it tick.

And before you ask, no I'm not a big fan of zoos either.

My disagreement is down to my belief that humans are animals no different from other species, except in our particular intelligence which has allowed us to develop technologies that no other species has. I don't have a big problem with issues such as stem cell research, cloning, etc... if it will benefit our species, but I'm just not a big fan of doing such things merely to satisfy our own curiosity.

Religious-types (particularly within the Judeo-Christian religions) see man as holding a special place above all other animals on the planet. I see us as one of those animals on the planet, but we are animals that have developed a sense of morality, and with that I do not personally think that we have the right to subject any other species to misery to satisfy our own curiosity.

Convince me that there is a genuine benefit to the human species that can be had from cloning an extinct animal.

[cyborg]

Yet again I plead with you: stop asking whether it is right or wrong.

What is it you people want to achieve by manipulating the course of other species?

[Dogdoctor]

You mean that two lines of purebred chickens are crossed to get the hybrid (crossbred) chicken. Or are you talking about a four-way crossing system - then you have 4 lines; two lines crossed to generate the parents of the final hybrid line? I would call the multiplier parents "lines".

Yeah thats right they have 2 lines of hybrids that are then crossed to produce the final product.

Faster growing, yes, but hardly healthier. Leg and joint problems, heart failure - they're not healthy enough to be raised as free-range chickens.
Huh? I am not sure what birds you are talking about.

Please. The reason dog breeds have problems is because of breed standards required by the various kennel clubs. Livestock producers won't suffer subpar offspring for the sake of conforming to some artificial type.

Dog breeding seems, at least in a few cases, to be going backward. Wasn't that long ago that the bulldog was a fairly athletic breed.
You'll note, that when I referred to the pug, I was talking of populations, not species. There's a reason for that.

The breed standards are created by various kennel clubs who are composed of ......dog breeders. They create the standards themselves. They have no (little) financial motivation to get rid of genetic problems.


Not really. You still have to feed the dogs, and that displaces something in the food chain.

Much pet food is made from by-products of human food industry.

And not all dogs live in households; mine go running with me and I can't say they haven't disturbed the local waterfowl populations. I'm pretty sure, though, they've kept the rabbits in check and seem to have knocked out the moles that were digging in the yard.
They'll catch a a bird or two, if it's damp. I don't catch birds, myself, and I haven't shot rabbits or any other critters in years.

Would coyotes have done has much as my dogs, I can't say. But my dogs have an advantage that coyotes don't have - my dogs get fed, regardless of their success at hunting; that's an advantage for surviving the winter. Plus they get immunized, wormed; they're healthier and live longer than their wild counterparts.


Of course there are people who are not ecologcially responsible about their dogs. They let their dog run loose to kill the local fauna. It is really bad if the fauna they are killing is endangered but in your case it is just rabbits and birds and moles which are likely in no danger of extinction.

[tkingdoll]

What is 'supposed' meant to mean in this context? Sounds kinda fatalistic to me...

[Correa Neto]

My take on the issue.

We've been changing certain species such as dogs, cattle and goldfishes to fit our needs and tastes for thousands of years by selective breeding; in a broad sense, I think is correct to say we've been engineering these animals. Some of these species nowadays are very different from their wild varieties; they are no longer what "they were supposed to be". I see no ethical problems with this. Selective breeding of humans, however, is something I consider as having a great potential for being unethical.

The same is valid for an extinct species. You think you have all you need (or can develop the techiques) to clone that species of fluvial dolphin recently found to be extinct and repopulate the rivers? Go ahead, do it! You think you have all you need (or can develop the techiques) to clone a saber-toothed tiger and sell cubs of extinct felines? Go ahead, do it!

But a Neanderthal? A sentient being? I say no way. I admit there may be cases where such ethical limitations would not apply. I am also fully aware that its a blurred line. A Neanderthal or an archaic Homo sapiens are clearly no go, australopithecines are go, but what about a Homo erectus?

One might say the re-introduction of extinct species in the wild could be a disaster. This could be a better reasoning against bringing back a species. Well, we already made a huge mess just by introducting alien species in various ecosystems. So again, we're back on the purpose issue. What would be the harm of reintroducing the dolphin? None. What would be the harm of having saber-toothed tigers at zoos and fenced reserves? I would say none.

[Dr Adequate]

"If we don't play god, who will?" - James Watson

[athon]

I fail to see why bringing them back for curiosity sake is a bad thing. To study and observe is completely valid. We do that today with all sorts of organisms and humans. Of course ethics comes into play, establishing that the wellbeing of the organism is primary. And if the organism was to have free will, this would need to be taken into account. Yet the immediate embargo on doing something because we wish to observe and learn from it seems lacking to me.

Some zoos are actually fantastic for animal conservation and protection (look up Dubbo Plains Zoo in Australia for one that is free range), not to mention essential for study and public education. These days we know enough about animal wellbeing to understand the comforts of animals; most zoos around here cater for the animal's comfort, who are all perfectly happy.

Athon

[six7s]

So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?

Where I live, an island that had no mammals other than a bat until 1200 years ago, there is an ongoing battle to eradicate the introduced possum (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617222.200-new-zealand-declares-war-on-the-possum-.html), for fi$cal reasons (it is a key agent in the spread of tuberculosis to dairy and beef) and for reasons of biodiversity - possums are annihilating not only our indigenous (and largely endemic) bird population but also the trees they live in

If/when possums are controlled (http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/what_is_biotech/environment/focus_stories/biological_control_of_possums), there will be a huge, gaping niche in our forests and I for one would like to see this filled by as many endemic species as possible

[six7s]

"If we don't play god, who will?" - James Watson

Good question! One that makes me realise the arrogance in my own words: our birds, our forests...

I suspect that they're ours simply because our opposable thumbs evolved faster than any other species' - and, perhaps, faster than our brains...

I'm guessing that when (not if) we become extinct, one or more highly adaptable species will fill our niche... and the new 'top dogs' will get to play god

[Correa Neto]

A cloned human would certainly find a way to integrate him/herself in our society. He/she would be as happy or unhappy as the average Joe/Jane Doe can be.

A Neanderthal (or a group of Neanderthals) would never have the opportunity to learn from their clan or tribe behaviors that are (were) integral parts of their existence, of their selves. Their cultures are lost forever, even if their genetic codes are not. At best, they would be Neanderthals behaving (or trying to behave) as humans or as humans think Neanderthals probably behaved. They would never be integrated within our society; chances are they would suffer a great ammount of prejudice.

I can't help but feeling uneasy about this.

But not about keping cloned australopithecines, smilodons, mammoths, etc. at zoos or reserves.

We must also remember that a cloned population, regardless of their numbers, would quite likely lack enough genetic diversity or drift to be viable. Its the (much contested) 50/500 rule. 50 specimens warrant short-term viability; 500 (or at least 5000, according to some) long-term viability. DNA from at least 50 specimens would have to be obtained and used to create clones if you want to build a viable population. I think this limits the potential ecological risks as well as the feasibility of reintroducting an extinct species. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way to artificially introduce genetic drift.

[dakotajudo]

Yeah thats right they have 2 lines of hybrids that are then crossed to produce the final product.
I was correcting your terminology, sorry if I was pedantic. A line is generally a purebreeding population; you really can't refer to a line of hybrids (I work with plant breeders, but the terminology is generally consistent with animal breeders).


Huh? I am not sure what birds you are talking about.

I'd quoted your statement "They are healthier and faster ... "


The breed standards are created by various kennel clubs who are composed of ......dog breeders. They create the standards themselves. They have no (little) financial motivation to get rid of genetic problems.

The financial motivation is to breed to type; it's not that there is a lack of financial incentive driving dog breeding, it's that in many cases the financial incentive is toward more pure lines, with the necessary genetic problems.

As long as dog owners are willing to pay more for a pedigreed or pure-bred pet, there will be a financial incentive to maintain inbred lines. Even if the current trend for hybrids continues, there will be a need to maintain the purebreeding parent lines.

Or are people paying more for mutts and mongrels? Myself, I've gotten purebreds only through rescue or adoption, otherwise I go for the hybrid vigor.


Much pet food is made from by-products of human food industry.

Some, perhaps, but not all. Were does the rest come from?

And, of source, those by-products going to your pet could otherwise be fed to, say, hogs or chickens. Since you're not going to eat your dogs, those by-products diverted from commercial feed to pets represent a drain on the food chain.


Of course there are people who are not ecologcially responsible about their dogs. They let their dog run loose to kill the local fauna.

Don't know about ecological responsibility, but historically, one the primary reasons for keeping dogs was to control varmints or to help with hunting. I can think of times when the dog kept skunks out the basement, racoons out of the barn and possums out the the chicken coop (and now we're back to chickens).

Personally, I think dogs are a more ecologically friendly control than, say, poisoning. Dogs mark their territory; their scent tends to keep out other animals, but not necessarily kill them (although, given a chance ...). A rabbit might venture into the yard, but it'll not stay long if gets a scent, and maybe move onto some more open range. I don't let my dogs range free to specifically *kill* local fauna, but I realize it's going to happen.

Come to think of it, I haven't had rabbits nibble away my peas or 'coons steal my corn in years.

On the other hand, poisoned grain will lure the critter, any critter, into the yard. And then ...

I suppose a more ecologically responsible owner would keep their dog indoors, full time, and feed them only from the garbage, but that's no life for an animal. So, we keep pets that have an environmental impact.


It is really bad if the fauna they are killing is endangered but in your case it is just rabbits and birds and moles which are likely in no danger of extinction.
Rabbits, birds and moles, in general? Or niche species that have had their environment encroached upon by migrating humans? There are some birds and moles (or is it shrews) around here that are rare and have limited range, IIRC.

I'm confused, previously you seemed to be arguing that it's OK to keep pets, if it's where humans have already wiped out the local ecosystem, because such pets have no environmental impact? Or that our pets don't have a significant impact, since they might catch just a few bunnies?

My main point was that the populations we maintain, animal and plant, greatly expand our already large environmental footprint. Some are necessary, some are for pleasure (one of the concerns relating to the spread of Zebra mussel is that sport fishermen and recreational boaters may carry mussels from lake to lake). Compared to that impact, cloning extinct species for scientific purposes isn't much of a concern to me.

[Dogdoctor]

I was correcting your terminology, sorry if I was pedantic. A line is generally a purebreeding population; you really can't refer to a line of hybrids (I work with plant breeders, but the terminology is generally consistent with animal breeders).
Your terminology is incorrect. A line is a group of genetically similar individuals not necessarily purebred.



I'd quoted your statement "They are healthier and faster ... "
You are mistaken the new hybrid birds are healthier and faster growing.


The financial motivation is to breed to type; it's not that there is a lack of financial incentive driving dog breeding, it's that in many cases the financial incentive is toward more pure lines, with the necessary genetic problems.

As long as dog owners are willing to pay more for a pedigreed or pure-bred pet, there will be a financial incentive to maintain inbred lines. Even if the current trend for hybrids continues, there will be a need to maintain the purebreeding parent lines.

Or are people paying more for mutts and mongrels? Myself, I've gotten purebreds only through rescue or adoption, otherwise I go for the hybrid vigor.

They don't have much financial motivation to breed dogs. Purebred dog breeding is a hobby for most. They don't make money from it. It is estimated that 9 out of ten purebred dog breeders loose money in the process. The only financial motivation they would have is that if their lines are healthier then their cost is lower but in order for that to be worthwhile the financial losses from culling of their lines needs to be less than the savings they get from doing so which it isn't in most cases.

Some, perhaps, but not all. Were does the rest come from?

And, of source, those by-products going to your pet could otherwise be fed to, say, hogs or chickens. Since you're not going to eat your dogs, those by-products diverted from commercial feed to pets represent a drain on the food chain.

Yea there are some resources that could be used for something else. Everything boils down to economics, resources get used where they are willing to pay the most for them.


Don't know about ecological responsibility, but historically, one the primary reasons for keeping dogs was to control varmints or to help with hunting. I can think of times when the dog kept skunks out the basement, racoons out of the barn and possums out the the chicken coop (and now we're back to chickens).

Personally, I think dogs are a more ecologically friendly control than, say, poisoning. Dogs mark their territory; their scent tends to keep out other animals, but not necessarily kill them (although, given a chance ...). A rabbit might venture into the yard, but it'll not stay long if gets a scent, and maybe move onto some more open range. I don't let my dogs range free to specifically *kill* local fauna, but I realize it's going to happen.

Come to think of it, I haven't had rabbits nibble away my peas or 'coons steal my corn in years.

On the other hand, poisoned grain will lure the critter, any critter, into the yard. And then ...

I suppose a more ecologically responsible owner would keep their dog indoors, full time, and feed them only from the garbage, but that's no life for an animal. So, we keep pets that have an environmental impact.


Rabbits, birds and moles, in general? Or niche species that have had their environment encroached upon by migrating humans? There are some birds and moles (or is it shrews) around here that are rare and have limited range, IIRC.

I'm confused, previously you seemed to be arguing that it's OK to keep pets, if it's where humans have already wiped out the local ecosystem, because such pets have no environmental impact? Or that our pets don't have a significant impact, since they might catch just a few bunnies?

My main point was that the populations we maintain, animal and plant, greatly expand our already large environmental footprint. Some are necessary, some are for pleasure (one of the concerns relating to the spread of Zebra mussel is that sport fishermen and recreational boaters may carry mussels from lake to lake). Compared to that impact, cloning extinct species for scientific purposes isn't much of a concern to me.
The majority of harm that pets cause can be limited by responsible ownership and/or enforcement of laws. We have changed the ecosystem by existing. I am for minimizing our impact when feasible.

[Loss Leader]

A Neanderthal (or a group of Neanderthals) would never have the opportunity to learn from their clan or tribe behaviors that are (were) integral parts of their existence, of their selves. Their cultures are lost forever, even if their genetic codes are not. At best, they would be Neanderthals behaving (or trying to behave) as humans or as humans think Neanderthals probably behaved. They would never be integrated within our society; chances are they would suffer a great ammount of prejudice.


In the moments before they disappeared, Neanderthals had begun creating art and wearing jewelry. They learned these things from the h. sapiens coming north. This leads me to believe that they were perfectly capable of understanding abstract symols even though they may not have had the creativity to develop these things on their own.

I expect that a Neanderthal raised in a completely blind manner by unsuspecting parents would be intelectually indistinguishable from all but the highest percentile of h. sapiens. We'd learn nothing about culture, ways of thinking, values, survival skills or anything else interesting.

But since the experiment violates every ethic in science, we'll never know.

[Ladewig]

2. You are at the center of ...

I know it is a derail and even a bit nerdy to ask, but would you supply the answer to question 2?

[arthwollipot]

I'm still lurking on this thread - I'm finding it very interesting.

Oh, and athon? It's Western Plains Zoo, located in Dubbo, NSW. I spent the night there once. :)

[athon]

Oh, and athon? It's Western Plains Zoo, located in Dubbo, NSW. I spent the night there once. :)

As a visitor or an inmate? ;)

Heh, thanks mate.

Athon

[a_unique_person]

"In the long run, we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes

Typical economist. :rolleyes:

[arthwollipot]

As a visitor or an inmate? ;)

:p

[six7s]

Typical economist. :rolleyes:

The Director General of WHO blames science (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236):

World Health Organization officials expressed disappointment Monday at the group's finding that, despite the enormous efforts of doctors, rescue workers and other medical professionals worldwide...

<snip/>

Many are suggesting that the high mortality rate represents a massive failure on the part of the planet's health care workers

Source (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236)



;)

[fortuneteller]

Theory has it that these huge wooly creatures became extinct and well-preserved by a sudden ice age preceeded by global warming

dont think natural disasters should necessarily dictate that a species
should loose its chance simply because no one was there to intervene

that is like saying "the polar bear HAD its chance, so lets not do anything
and let the species die out"

[six7s]

Is having cute, fluffy, doe-eyed offspring a natural or artificial selection trait in this (new) context?

[Cuddles]

In the moments before they disappeared, Neanderthals had begun creating art and wearing jewelry. They learned these things from the h. sapiens coming north. This leads me to believe that they were perfectly capable of understanding abstract symols even though they may not have had the creativity to develop these things on their own.

The current evidence suggests that Neanderthals developed their own technology and art well before any contact with h. sapiens. The idea of Neanderthals not being intelligent or creative enough to come up with these things themselves is just a leftover from the days when humans were thought of as more than just another animal.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024241.300
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426085.400-neanderthals-bid-for-human-status.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221914.900-family-secrets.html

(The interbreeding theory in the 3rd link has been fairly conclusively proven wrong, but the article has some nice information in it.)

[Loss Leader]

The current evidence suggests that Neanderthals developed their own technology and art well before any contact with h. sapiens. The idea of Neanderthals not being intelligent or creative enough to come up with these things themselves is just a leftover from the days when humans were thought of as more than just another animal.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024241.300
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426085.400-neanderthals-bid-for-human-status.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221914.900-family-secrets.html

(The interbreeding theory in the 3rd link has been fairly conclusively proven wrong, but the article has some nice information in it.)


None of your links refute my claim that Neanderthals developed art and jewelry only at the very end of their existence after exposure to Cro Magnons. Your first link actually supports my statement, saying that the art they found dated to the very end of the Neanderthal era. The second link talked about technological innovations in survival strategies, something unrelated to my point.

I agree that the hunched over, grunting, hairy depiction of Neanderthals is wrong-headed and "racist" in the truest sense. But I cannot find any support for the contention that art and jewelry existed in these people before contact with modern humans 40,000 years ago.

[Cuddles]

None of your links refute my claim that Neanderthals developed art and jewelry only at the very end of their existence after exposure to Cro Magnons. Your first link actually supports my statement, saying that the art they found dated to the very end of the Neanderthal era. The second link talked about technological innovations in survival strategies, something unrelated to my point.

Ah, but it isn't entirely unrelated. Art is not a separate entity, it is all part of the culture and intellect of a species. Neanderthals were thought generally unintelligent because there was no evidence of art or technological advancement for most of their existence. The new evidence shows that there was actually significant advancement. Given that it is very likely that our some ideas about their intellect were wrong, other ideas based on these are severely weakened.

As far as I know there isn't evidence of Neaderthal art any earlier. However, I think it is unjustified to claim that this is because they weren't creative enough when it has been shown that they were just as creative as other hominids in other areas.

[Correa Neto]

Neanderthals had an average cranial capacity of 1450 cm3; H. sapiens have 1345 cm3 (http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm); by itself this information brings no light on their culture and intelligence.

Neanderthals may have developed rituals, arts and some "top notch" stone age tools by themselves or copied/adapted/borrowed them from H. sapiens. Even if they did not created these items by themselves, this would not necessarily imply they lacked the skills needed to fully use, comprehend or improve arts, rituals and "advanced" tools. If they could do so, then potentially they could blend within our society. But I still doubt this (at least nowadays) since even within our secularist societies there are still a lot of prejudices around.

If they just copied such items and never fully understood them, well, maybe Neanderthals were P-zombies...

[Loss Leader]

Ah, but it isn't entirely unrelated. Art is not a separate entity, it is all part of the culture and intellect of a species. Neanderthals were thought generally unintelligent because there was no evidence of art or technological advancement for most of their existence. The new evidence shows that there was actually significant advancement. Given that it is very likely that our some ideas about their intellect were wrong, other ideas based on these are severely weakened.

As far as I know there isn't evidence of Neaderthal art any earlier. However, I think it is unjustified to claim that this is because they weren't creative enough when it has been shown that they were just as creative as other hominids in other areas.


I don't think I agree with you. I agree without hesitation that Neanderthals were much smarter and adaptable than they've generally been given credit for. They survived at least three entire ice age cycles.

However, art and ornamentation are present in the Cro Magnon record for as long as 77,000 years ago from South Africa traveling all the way to Europe. Neanderthals inhabited Europe for 120,000 years or longer and it was only in the brief overlap with h. sapiens that they started using ornamentation. I think it is a mistake to dismiss this as insignificant.

Perhaps "creativity" isn't a single concept. Plenty of animals get very creative while seeking food or escape from confinement but are relative dullards so long as their basic needs are being met. "Creativity" for purposes other than survival may be the distinguishing feature of our more successful breed of humans.

[I less than three logic]

P-zombies...
What the heck is this term doing outside the R&P section? Have the containment barriers been breached? Did someone break quarantine? Quick everyone over to Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, I'm afraid it may be too late to save General Skepticism from an infestation. :eek:

[Correa Neto]

Oh, its just a "Holistic approach"...:D

Check this out:

Could Neanderthals experencie qualia as we do?:duck:

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think I agree with you. I agree without hesitation that Neanderthals were much smarter and adaptable than they've generally been given credit for. They survived at least three entire ice age cycles.
That depends they did not change their tools over that entire period.

[Cuddles]

Neanderthals inhabited Europe for 120,000 years or longer

One of those links says over 300,000 years. That may not help my argument though.:boggled:

That depends they did not change their tools over that entire period.

Yes they did, that was the whole point of my argument.

[manofthesea]

I'm uncertain as to the effectiveness of cloning extinct species. But being that genetic engineering in general is advancing to affect all types of species, I think it is time for some (r)evolutionary thinking. Instead of bringing back mastadons, saber cats, and even neanderthals we should try and find scientific ways to save current species. Such as the snow leopard, desert elephant, polar bears, and the great apes. I have a practical and (r)evolutionary idea. Firstly it is fairly established that the mentioned animals are in danger of extinction. These animals are endangered for fairly well understood reasons, mostly being habitat loss. What we as humans do now to either save these species or let them die out is up to us.

Here's my idea. Re-engineer their genes to make the above named species smaller. Dog sized. Then we as humans could care for an almost unlimited amount of animals. And breed them. As we do dogs. Think of how many dogs and cats are in North America. Hundreds of millions. Seriously, we could have registered breeding programs, conducted by scientific specialists to ensure the successful continuance of each individual species. I live on the dry side of Oahu and I could well use a herd of tiny red elephants in my backyard.

Anyway, I think we as humans are ready for the challenge.

[soylent]

And now for a brief intermission:

Loose means not firmly attached, not tightly fitting. "...Loose money..." or "...loose it's chance..." is not what you intended to say. When someone writes that they're trying to loose weight, it doesn't fail to make me chuckle at the comical implications, but nevertheless, it gets tedious seeing the exact same spelling error everywhere.

Lose means to fail, to get rid of.

We now return to your regularly scheduled programing.

[quarky]

Ethics is some sticky goo, eh?

I guess i wouldn't mind seeing Stellar's sea cow having a comeback...and maybe a few of the ostrich-sized birds of Australia. Both were reputed to be quite delicious and benign.

If we had seen their value as a food source a few hundred years ago, they likely would still be with us.

[Pope130]

I just had an interesting image of a post human future when people have all been destroyed by a pandemic.

Picture of a group of Asimov style robots at a cyber cafe. The robots are sitting around talking about the possibility of cloning humans, and discussing whether it's ethical because "They're supposed to be extinct".

Robert

[William Parcher]

Ethics is some sticky goo, eh?

I guess i wouldn't mind seeing Stellar's sea cow having a comeback...and maybe a few of the ostrich-sized birds of Australia. Both were reputed to be quite delicious and benign.

If we had seen their value as a food source a few hundred years ago, they likely would still be with us.

They may have been driven to extinction because humans saw their value as a food source. I think you meant to say we should have seen the potential to eat them with such abandon that it could cause them to vanish.

The passenger pigeon is gone because humans placed great value on it as a food source (and for feeding livestock). Many were killed to feed domestic pigs. The American bison is a similar story but with a better ending. A few remained and the species was saved after strong measures to protect them.

[shadron]

I agree that the hunched over, grunting, hairy depiction of Neanderthals is wrong-headed and "racist" in the truest sense. But I cannot find any support for the contention that art and jewelry existed in these people before contact with modern humans 40,000 years ago.

And being able to "copy" abstract ideas doesn't take some intelligence? Tell you what - buy a puppy, and try to train it by letting it watch you answering nature's call, and carefully measure the results. :)

As for what use such clones would be - well, every species has its own approaches to countering the ills that its environment inflicts on it - that's a result of the much-maligned random nature of evolution. They create random, unique ways of countering them, and that's buried in their genome. Of course, they could be pulled from their directly, but it's likely easier to grow some of the animals and observe what they do. This is a similar bio argument for not killing species wholesale.

Also, they could make a walloping good amusement park.

[Ron_Tomkins]

"We shouldn't play God"?

What better example than a Cardinal or a Pope if we were looking for men who played God?

[quarky]

Who will be the new NRA spokesperson, speaking of god.

[Gevaudan]

Just chiming in on the Neanderthal problem - if they were brought back to life, it would be interesting as all heck to see how theists would classify them. Wasn't there a sci-fi book where a scientist cloned a human ancestor specifically to mock evolution deniers?

On the off chance that for some reason a viable population of Neanderthals was created, even if they were significantly less intelligent than H. sapiens, they might manage to survive as society manages to support the handicapped even if it often does a crappy job. That would raise a whole new host of fascinating ethical problems.

Speaking personally, though, I would love to have a sheltie-sized T. rex running around the place, although that veers more into genetic engineering than straight ahead cloning.

[NobbyNobbs]

Thanks. I remember that now. I think we learned the same things about dodos. However I think that was wild dodos and commercially raised would be different. In commercial flocks you would eat them at a young enough age that they are tender and the flavor depends to large degree on the diet so it's possible that if they were fed a specific diet they would taste better. Of course it is likely that they are not very efficient at producing meat or eggs from the diet fed.


As long as you're cloning, why not go ahead and genetically engineer them to taste better? You could just kill two birds with...one....uh oh.

:duck:

[quarky]

Why not engineer humans instead?

We should be able to eat tree leaves by now.

[arthwollipot]

Why not engineer humans instead?

We should be able to eat tree leaves by now.Why? There's other perfectly nutritious food available.

Er, to most of us.