De-extinction and creating new life

[Comrade Jenkens]

I've watched a few programs recently about both the de-extinction of species and genetically modifying existing species to make something new.

Do you think that people should bring back species from the dead?

Edit: I'm actually for bringing back more recent ones due to the fact that humans were the reason they died out in the first place.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Comrade Jenkens

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I've watched a few programs recently about both the de-extinction of species and genetically modifying existing species to make something new.

Do you think that people should bring back species from the dead?

Do you mean to repopulate areas of the earth with these new species or just bring them back for novelty in a lab?

If you mean repopulation, then no because that would destroy the ecosystems that have taken many many millenia to create. I have no problem with recreating extinct species in a lab though.

[NASAFanboy]

Repopulate species that went extinct less than 50000 years ago?

Why not.

Repopulate species that went extinct more than 50000 years ago?

No, freaking way.

If it's too old, it may have an ecological impact that may not be so good.

[Nibb31]

Species from millions of years ago were made for a very different ecosystem. The air they breathed was different, the plants or animals that they fed on were different, the bacteria were different. The Earth was pretty much a different planet then, a planet that would probably be considered uninhabitable to humans. Chances are that if you brought back a species from that era, they would not be fit to survive in our world.

Did you know that our gut flora is made of trillions of complex micro-organisms that live inside us, of hundreds of different species. Each human is host to more than 10 times more micro-organisms than the number of cells in our whole body. We have an osmotic relationship with them, because we need those specific bacteria for our metabolism to function, and they need us to survive. They evolved with us, and if we were to go extinct, so would they.

So bringing back an extinct species is much harder than just making a foetus by reconstructing its ADN. You would also need to recreate its biome and all the species (including bacteria) that were vital for it to survive.

[Kryten]

Really, 'bringing back' species is only really possible for recently extinct organisms anyway, due to degradation of ancient dna. Yes, we might be able to get dna from neanderthal bones, but it's not and will never be enough to reconstruct an entire genome. The only (sub)species that has actually been resurrected, despite multiple attempts, is one that snuffed it in the distant depths of the year 2000.

[Seret]

It's viable for very recently extinct species such as the Tasmanian tiger, where DNA is available, and the environment is compatible.

[Sillychris]

I absolutely believe we should bring back extinct species. In particular, species whose extinctions we are responsible for. Not doing so if we have the means available is nothing short of evil.

In regard to bringing back species that went extinct naturally, I also believe we should, except maybe only in captivity or on other planets. Here I feel there is no moral responsibility but instead a scientific responsibility. What we can learn from a reincarnated extinct species is beyond prediction.

In regard to engineering new species, I believe this should be done as well. Once again, the potential for knowledge is enormous and we may just invent something that can help solve very serious problems and/or be used for terraforming colonization purposes. Engineering should be proceeded with carefully, with regulation, and with full disclosure, however.

[Red Iron Crown]

Bring them all back if we can, I say. More diversity is better.

[CaptainKipard]

Even if you don't care about animals in general, increasing biodiversity is beneficial to human survival. Medical and technological sciences benefit a hell of a lot from studying living animals and plants.

[Dispatcher]

While bringing back extinct species of (hopefully benign, or at least controllable; no plague) organisms would be interesting to say the least, it would probably be successful on a limited basis only. Otherwise there are the considerations of large and diverse habitats, as well as other concerns mentioned above. For those species which have been lost due to human activity, such a restoration needs to address not repeating the extinction causes.

[TheDataMiner]

I'm all for resurrecting human-caused extinction once it becomes possiable!

(But I think we would all be fine with the extinction of smallpox:))

[Sillychris]

(But I think we would all be fine with the extinction of smallpox:))

But you can use smallpox on your enemies!

[Vaebn]

No, because it's playing God.

j/k. j/k.

It could be fun for a short while (my definition of "short whiles" can last several thousands years), especially for Terrforming purposes and stuff if brain uploads take too much time to do. It also an obvious to do for food production, drug production and so on. Plants are basically self-replicating nanotechnology, that convert air and ground into stuff!

Different sort of plants could be used for construction purposes and stuff, but that might be just me wanting to live in epic treehouses.

Brainless animals could easily take the moral problems out of eating meat, potentially in an easier, cheaper and more tasty way than lab-grown meat which is always "50 years away".

However eventually the answer is going to be no.

After "humanity" switches its conciousness from meat bodies to something more resilient, there will simply be no more purpose to the rest of the ecosystem.

It might have been fun going around planets and seeding life to them for artistic purposes, however the truth is that this is probably quite rude thing to do. Whilst the immortal VR humans inside their computronium might be sucking sun and playing all day, any such life would still continue to suffer, get ill, hungry and die. Gazelles (or genetically modified martian gazelles) would still feel the agony of being eaten by lions (or genetically modified martian lions), mother cats would still worry about the kitten that has fallen ill and isn't moving much. Birds that might have broken a wing dragging it behind them and wondering in whatever intelligence they have why its not working.

Instead I believe it is the moral obligation of any such life is to, well, politely put. Wipe the surface of the planet clean.

Thus forever ending the suffering and death of any life that doesn't get to play forever immortal like it. This isn't such a weird position to have. After all any non-immortal life would have died eventually. So we might as well do it once and get it over with.

After the earth has been wiped clean and all mass of the solar system begin to be put towards making more computing substance / shapeships or whatever, there might be a bit of a debate regarding wither it is worth "simulating' any such life that might enjoy some of the advantages. Like immortal cats or whatever. However I do think that even that position will be found a bit iffy since you would essentially be keeping around things that are purposely "stupid" for the purpose of basically making ourselves feel better, no matter how happy they might be. Plus any such simulation would waste energy better put into thinking what the hell will be done once the suns start to die out...

Hows that for an answer?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Vaebn

[jwenting]

species go extinct, species become prevalent. That's nature, don't mess with it.

Making new species (and yes, "bringing back" a species is that, you never have enough specimens to create a viable population, or full DNA, so you have to mix and match with other species and create hydribs) is just as bad, if not worse, than killing off entire species for the heck of it.

And oh, if you want to bring back the things "mankind has destroyed" out of some idiotic self hatred, you may want to start simple. With say smallpox...

[Pigbear]

why would you bring back smallpox jwenting

[CaptainKipard]

species go extinct, species become prevalent. That's nature, don't mess with it.

Making new species (and yes, "bringing back" a species is that, you never have enough specimens to create a viable population, or full DNA, so you have to mix and match with other species and create hydribs) is just as bad, if not worse, than killing off entire species for the heck of it.

And oh, if you want to bring back the things "mankind has destroyed" out of some idiotic self hatred, you may want to start simple. With say smallpox...

I don't think you finished your point there. It looked like a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

It should go:

Don't mess with nature, because.....

Making new species is bad, because......

Opinions aren't as interesting as arguments, so make an argument.

[KOCOUR]

No matter if we were cause of extinction or not, We should definitelly bring back species that are essential for the ecosystem to work properly, or species that we could benefit from, and we shall not do it for not so essential species, unless we have so many resources ( for example money) that we can just waste it.

[Seret]

That's nature, don't mess with it.

Ah well, best pack up civilisation now then. Shame, I was getting used to it.

[Kryten]

you never have enough specimens to create [...]full DNA, so you have to mix and match with other species and create hydribs)

Do you actually have any knowledge of genetics that's not from Jurassic park? Look at the Pyrenean ibex, no 'hydribs' there.

[SargeRho]

Hows that for an answer?

None. If you base value on the rarity of something, then life is the most valuable thing in the universe, each lifeform being unique. You can find rocky planets like sand on a beach, you can grind any sufficiently big diamond into the desired shape, but nothing will ever be quite as unique as life.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Hows that for an answer?

Rather terrifying...

[78stonewobble]

I vote YES to jurassic park, but I only want meat eating dinosaurs roaming the streets of cities I really don't like.

So yes... If it were possible to bring back a somewhat long extinct animal I think we should in controlled settings to learn everything about it.

If it's a recently extinct animal where we are responsible for it's extinction, then we should try to bring it back as well. Provided offcourse, as others mentioned, that the ecosystem is still in place for it.

EDIT: When ever people start talking about uploading consciousness or AI's like they're right around the corner it makes me think, that it'll be 100's of years before they make a computer that can house my brain... and that sadly the 486's are outta production for other people.

Edited March 26, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Klingon Admiral]

Why should we bring back extinct species? They had their chance at competing for survival and lost out. Species die out all the time, and have been doing so for the last 500-and-something million years, it is a matter of fact. Just because we are better at thriving other species to extinction shouldn't make us feel bad.

[SargeRho]

We've caused the extinction of countless species with out reckless behaviour. I think it's our obligation to bring them back if we can.

[Klingon Admiral]

We've caused the extinction of countless species with out reckless behaviour. I think it's our obligation to bring them back if we can.

Every species is responsible for the extinction of at least one other species. The species it evolved from.