If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   What are the ethical implications of bringing a long extinct species back to life?   ( salon.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, passenger pigeon, Extinction, extinct animals, passenger pigeons, gastric brooding frog, extinct passenger pigeon, great barred frog, Pyrenean ibex  
•       •       •

2545 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2017 at 11:15 PM (37 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-05 10:17:13 PM  
Species want species to use species to species. Again.
 
2017-11-05 10:18:11 PM  
None
 
2017-11-05 10:21:01 PM  
If it can help me accomplish my goals, it'd be immoral not to.
 
2017-11-05 10:21:34 PM  

cman: None


SOMEONE hasn't seen/read Jurassic Park ...
 
2017-11-05 10:26:50 PM  
BBQ'd brontosaurus ribs would tip your car over at the drive in.
 
2017-11-05 10:34:27 PM  
Not much.  We survived it already, it's probably not making a comeback.
 
2017-11-05 10:35:32 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: If it can help me accomplish my goals, it'd be immoral not to.


If it can help me live forever, it'd be immortal not to.
 
2017-11-05 10:51:25 PM  
We can't keep the species we currently have from going extinct. What makes you think we'd manage to keep a suitable environment for something like a population of resurrected woolly mammoths intact? Why bring them back just to screw them over again?

We need to mature as a species ourselves first. Then maybe we could do it.
 
2017-11-05 11:16:58 PM  
Do they taste good?
 
2017-11-05 11:28:39 PM  
MrBallou:

What makes you think we'd manage to keep a suitable environment for something like a population of resurrected woolly mammoths intact? Why bring them back just to screw them over again?

We'll keep them in old abandoned Detroit walk-in freezers. But don't worry. If they are too cold, semi annual campaigns for supportive knitting clubs to make wooly jumpers for the mammoths will cover them in love.
 
2017-11-05 11:29:29 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Do they taste good?


Either way, we'll have to decide at what population level we can start killing them again. If they taste good, their population will grow faster because more people will start raising them to get them to the harvesting population level.
 
2017-11-05 11:32:09 PM  
Well, we'd find out if life, uh really does find a way
 
2017-11-05 11:36:20 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 11:39:20 PM  
Only that we get to kill them to extinction again.
 
2017-11-05 11:44:33 PM  
Like Labor-friendly Democrats or sane if Labor-surly Republicans? I don't see any downsides.
 
2017-11-05 11:44:51 PM  
Honestly, the big question is mostly if we can actually un-extinct them in any practical sense.  Remember you need to have a sustainable population with enough variation not to collapse, which is something we don't even really have a particularly good way to quantify beyond kinda ballparking it at this point.

There's not really an ethical issue here, once the species are alive they'll be... well, a living species that exists.  Same general ethics as any other species that exists.

I mean... I can understand why Salon would think it was more complicated: everyone who has ever written anything for Salon is an irredeemable moron incapable of completing a full thought, much less a train of them.  So no mystery there either, I guess.
 
2017-11-05 11:48:19 PM  
I don't know but Britt Wray can bring my long dormant species back to life, IYKWIM.
/by long dormant I mean like 30 minutes
 
2017-11-05 11:50:05 PM  
Well, you're essentially talking about an invasive species.  The ecosystem has had some time to get used to the fact that this or that species isn't around anymore, and to suddenly reintroduce it like "lol jk" could have some unintended and unpleasant consequences.  That was the whole point of Jurassic Park, after all; the T-rex eating the lawyer on the toilet was just a dramatic way of making that point.
 
2017-11-05 11:51:44 PM  
A species that, by human action, went extinct, I really don't see the problem.  Other species, like the mammoth,  where could we put them, and could they adapt to the modern environment, rather more iffy.  T-rexes, raptor, etc, so many downsides to that.  So no.
 
2017-11-05 11:54:34 PM  
Why would the ethics be any different than creating new species through selective breeding?
 
2017-11-06 12:05:05 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Well, you're essentially talking about an invasive species.  The ecosystem has had some time to get used to the fact that this or that species isn't around anymore, and to suddenly reintroduce it like "lol jk" could have some unintended and unpleasant consequences.  That was the whole point of Jurassic Park, after all; the T-rex eating the lawyer on the toilet was just a dramatic way of making that point.


How is eating a lawyer an unpleasant consequence?
 
2017-11-06 12:07:30 AM  

mr intrepid: T-rexes, raptor, etc, so many downsides to that.  So no.


Actually, those aren't even possible.  DNA will degrade to incomprehensibility in about 5MY.  Dinosaurs went extinct about 13 times that long.  There is no biological residue to even start making a new one.

skyotter: Why would the ethics be any different than creating new species through selective breeding?


Because a new species through selective breeding would be adapted to its environment.   Unless you are talking about a species that has gone extinct in the last couple of decades, that isn't going to be true for a reanimated one - and considering most of the species in the last century went extinct specifically because we steamrolled their environment, that probably isn't even true for a recently extinct one.  Reanimating an old species is essentially making it to die out again.  You either keep it in a ridiculously artificial environment to keep it alive, or have to spam the damn things to keep up with the die-offs in the wild.  A selectively bred species is done to live better (for a given definition of delicious, delicious "better").  Reanimating virtually any species would be like cloning your dead kid with the inoperative degenerative disease - unless you are really, really into wee coffins, you're just being a dick.
 
2017-11-06 12:08:46 AM  
They might be delicious.
 
2017-11-06 12:09:51 AM  
We already have enough ecological problems caused by invasive species. Why would we deliberately want to make the problem worse?
 
2017-11-06 12:12:42 AM  

HawgWild: cman: None

SOMEONE hasn't seen/read Jurassic Park ...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-06 12:13:37 AM  

aerojockey: Olympic Trolling Judge: Well, you're essentially talking about an invasive species.  The ecosystem has had some time to get used to the fact that this or that species isn't around anymore, and to suddenly reintroduce it like "lol jk" could have some unintended and unpleasant consequences.  That was the whole point of Jurassic Park, after all; the T-rex eating the lawyer on the toilet was just a dramatic way of making that point.

How is eating a lawyer an unpleasant consequence?


Eating a lawyer is fine.  Eating your lawyer can be a bit of a hassle.  You gotta get the new guy up to speed, and that's more billable hours out of your pocket.
 
2017-11-06 12:15:07 AM  
What's the point of science if you can't spit in the face of god? I want a saber tooth kitty.
 
2017-11-06 12:15:09 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Do they taste good?


Sadly, we'll never know. So many species died out before the discovery of marinades, sous vide, aging, wine pairing, etc., would have unlocked their full potential.
 
2017-11-06 12:18:51 AM  

HawgWild: cman: None

SOMEONE hasn't seen/read Jurassic Park ...


Sci-fi and philosophers are always bringing up shiat that we don't have problems with the implications of when they are useful.

Also it turns out we don't have souls and there is no God, and the Naturalistic Fallacy is just that.
 
2017-11-06 12:20:23 AM  

GodComplex: What's the point of science if you can't spit in the face of god? I want a saber tooth kitty.


God schmod I want my monkey boy
 
2017-11-06 12:36:03 AM  

Wanebo: BBQ'd brontosaurus ribs would tip your car over at the drive in.


If the target species is delicious in a garlic cream sauce or a balsamic glaze I see no ethical issues.
 
2017-11-06 12:40:26 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: Do they taste good?


if we're ok with GMOs in our food chain we shouldn't have an issue with Hell Pig bacon.
 
2017-11-06 12:43:26 AM  

mr intrepid: A species that, by human action, went extinct, I really don't see the problem.  Other species, like the mammoth,  where could we put them, and could they adapt to the modern environment, rather more iffy.  T-rexes, raptor, etc, so many downsides to that.  So no.


There's actually a place in Siberia that has been created for mammoths and other similar Ice Age fauna if they are ever brought back.
 
2017-11-06 12:47:01 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Well, you're essentially talking about an invasive species.


We could put mammoths in Canada. The U.S. isn't using most of Canada.
 
2017-11-06 01:03:31 AM  
If humans were responsible for the extinction of a species, wouldn't we ethnically owe it to them to try to bring them back?
 
2017-11-06 01:07:51 AM  
You can't bring back extinct animals, unless they died off recently enough that any preserved specimens haven't suffered from DNA decay. Anything else isn't going to be the animal. At best it'll be a genetically engineered amalgam of modern living relatives and what we think the extinct animal may have been like. You can never bring back the Mammoth. At best you can tinker with an Elephant to make it look like one.

So the debate is moot. You're not resurrecting a dead animal, you're inventing a whole new one that kinda sorta looks like the dead one. Which means the argument should instead be whether or not it's ethical to invent new animals in a lab for funsies.
 
2017-11-06 01:22:01 AM  

Esroc: You can't bring back extinct animals, unless they died off recently enough that any preserved specimens haven't suffered from DNA decay. Anything else isn't going to be the animal. At best it'll be a genetically engineered amalgam of modern living relatives and what we think the extinct animal may have been like. You can never bring back the Mammoth. At best you can tinker with an Elephant to make it look like one.

So the debate is moot. You're not resurrecting a dead animal, you're inventing a whole new one that kinda sorta looks like the dead one. Which means the argument should instead be whether or not it's ethical to invent new animals in a lab for funsies.


Came in here to say much the same thing. There's a larger question that needs to be dealt with, and de-extinction is just a subset.

That plus the issues with changes in habitat over time since extinction, not to mention other community members and all the ensuing interactions. There are many issues that TFA does not even hint at.
 
2017-11-06 01:25:35 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: aerojockey: Olympic Trolling Judge: Well, you're essentially talking about an invasive species.  The ecosystem has had some time to get used to the fact that this or that species isn't around anymore, and to suddenly reintroduce it like "lol jk" could have some unintended and unpleasant consequences.  That was the whole point of Jurassic Park, after all; the T-rex eating the lawyer on the toilet was just a dramatic way of making that point.

How is eating a lawyer an unpleasant consequence?

Eating a lawyer is fine.  Eating your lawyer can be a bit of a hassle.  You gotta get the new guy up to speed, and that's more billable hours out of your pocket.


I guess you're right, we really can't de-extinct all these species, because they just might eat your own lawyer.
 
2017-11-06 02:00:16 AM  
I saw Jurassic Park today in a symphony hall, with the music done live. It was farkin' magical.

I don't have anything to add to this thread beyond that.

/anyone saying they want to do this for reasons other than eventually hunting and eating it is full of shiat
 
2017-11-06 02:04:40 AM  
It depends on who you ask.

If you ask any potential creatures it displaces they'll say it sucks.

But all creatures, humans included are ok with it as long as it doesn't impact them directly.

If it's responsible for eating or killing most the other creatures on the earth, only Darwin will approve.

If we kill everything off and nothing can survive the planet, then we sort of have an obligation to come up with something that can survive after. I vote for Krogan.
 
2017-11-06 02:30:28 AM  
Consider the case of the wolves of Yellowstone; extinct for 70 years in the region until reintroduced in 1995:
How Wolves Change Rivers
Youtube ysa5OBhXz-Q

Audio warning: loud howling at start
 
2017-11-06 03:34:55 AM  
I was gonna post an animated gif of someone glazing a chunk of meat in a pan with a spoon glaze, but damned if I can't find any one anywhere on the internet.  Huh.
 
2017-11-06 03:42:26 AM  

cman: None


Well, someone doesn't have a book to sell. ;-p
 
2017-11-06 03:44:55 AM  
Farking stupid question. It's as ethical to restore any species for keeping them in zoos and use as cattle as keeping actual, you know, cows. Get to it.

Trying to set them in wilderness would be rather stupid, though.
 
2017-11-06 03:45:36 AM  

Cpl.D: I was gonna post an animated gif of someone glazing a chunk of meat in a pan with a spoon glaze, but damned if I can't find any one anywhere on the internet.  Huh.


But, dayum, so many turkey baster ones it's hard to choose...
 
2017-11-06 03:59:09 AM  
Only two questions here:

i) Are they palatable?
ii) Are they cute?

Either or both will guarantee success.

We don't care about ugly critters which taste bad.
 
2017-11-06 04:06:33 AM  

grinding_journalist: I saw Jurassic Park today in a symphony hall, with the music done live. It was farkin' magical.

I don't have anything to add to this thread beyond that.

/anyone saying they want to do this for reasons other than eventually hunting and eating it is full of shiat


The Mustang. Everyone either nostalgia loves them, or hates them. The horse went extinct in North America in the ice age, and some nature lovers think it's O.K. to have them back because the USED to live here. And the blackfooted ferret is almost in the same boat because everyone hates their food/burrow source  (gophers). Ideally having ecosystems back to normal is nice, but humans are not good at sharing space with anything that doesn't help them.

So you are not wrong, but I would wager with a thought pulled out if my ass, a non-zero number of people would want them for funsies or as a way to stabilize an ecosystem.
 
2017-11-06 04:33:15 AM  

uttertosh: Cpl.D: I was gonna post an animated gif of someone glazing a chunk of meat in a pan with a spoon glaze, but damned if I can't find any one anywhere on the internet.  Huh.

But, dayum, so many turkey baster ones it's hard to choose...


Yeah, but it isn't the same.  I was going for more of an elitist feel, you know?  A big piece of salmon and spooning glaze over it by some four digit an hour chef.  If we ever bring back bronto burgers in a real kind of way, it would be pinky ring clientele only for a good while.  I would imagine.
 
2017-11-06 05:26:09 AM  
There are no such thing as 'ethics.' There is survival of the fittest, period.
 
2017-11-06 05:43:55 AM  

Shaggy_C: There are no such thing as 'ethics.' There is survival of the fittest, period.


Ethics assist survival.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report