Should We Bring Back Extinct Animals? De-Extinction Debate

[pickledham]

It depends on what kind of creature you're talking about, and how it went extinct. If you're referring to a species as ancient as the wooly mammoth, then no, I definitely vote against that. There's no guarantee they could survive in today's world, or that they couldn't harm already existing species.
If someone wanted to bring back a recently extinct animal (around five to ten years or so) that died out from human poaching and/or hunting, then maybe I'd consider it. Scientists would have to carefully decide how to introduce them back into their original location however, and not "relocate" the species to a foreign area, even if it is believed they could survive there. They would also need a plan they could fall back on if things went wrong. You don't know what kind of damage relocating a creature can do to another ecosystem until you've actually done so; the species would need to be safely reintroduced and then continued to be monitored/studied.
I do agree that funding and efforts should be used for endangered species at this. Until they've got most endangered species in the clear, no one should be focusing on animals that already dead and gone. Even then, money could still be spent on better things that actually have a high chance of working. It just seems selfish and illogical to clone an animal for our own entertainment/benefit/etc.

[_Nimbus_]

Only animals that died because of humans, like the dodo,
If this does happen, I have a list to revive
Dodo Extinct 1800s
Golden Toad Extinct 1989 (Because none have been seen since one encounter.)
Thylacline Extinct 1936
Easten cougar Extinct 2015
Passenger pigeon
Basically all species that became extinct because of humans
NO DINOSAURS, NONE
This is just sad http://www.pixable.com/article/heres-ev ... otos-67674

[alethe]

there is an entire series of movies dedicated to saying why bringing back extinct animals is a bad idea.

[_Nimbus_]

I swear, If someone does Jurassic park for real........

[Nordue]

there is an entire series of movies dedicated to saying why bringing back extinct animals is a bad idea.

• Yeah but stichting together the genomes of distantly related animals to create super dinos is so inaccurate!

[Thypaella]

Have any of you seen Jurassic Park/World?


Nuff said.

[paperpaws]

Have any of you seen Jurassic Park/World?


Nuff said.

Looks like a 'no' to me :'D

I think, as pickledham pointed out, it really depends on the species. If it is unknown how the animal wouls function in current ecosystems, I wouldn't bother. However, if a species recently died out and the ecosystem got negatively affected as a result, then I could see some merit in that.

Apart from that, I'll stick with the Jurassic Park mindset. Just because you potentially could, doesn't mean you should.. As interesting as the scientific concept is, it's not our place to mess with nature like that.

[Keytone]

bring the dinosaurs back
they deserve to live more than we do

[D0m]

- In order to keep some resurrected herbivore species alive, a large amount of tree species and individual trees would also have to be cloned and harvested in order to provide them with their natural diet
- Resurrecting certain "charismatic" species vs saving millions of endangered ones
- Habitats have changed too much since species went extinct. What makes them able to survive on their own now?

I will use these topics to add my view on the subject.

First off a herbivorous species would need a certain type of food. This would effect the bringing back of extinct species because if not enough of the plant they needed was produced then that plant would have to be duplicated itself, causing financial problems. For animals that were around millions of years ago '(eg dinosaurs) may not even have the certain vegetation that they need for survival availible on our planet anymore. If this was to happen the reintroduction process would never work.

Now for my second point, saving extinct vs saving endangered. This means that endagered species would go extinct eventually as everyone would be concenstrating on these new "creations" but surely saving endangered species is surpossed to stop extinction...

Thirdly habitat change. Habitats have changed so much and the species would have to evolve to follow these again, he majority of them dying off quickly.

And last of all dinosaurs would deserve a second life more than anything. But no one would allow it after watching Jurassic Park XD

[Latra]

I love genetic engineering and am amazed by what we accomplish. I think we should bring back any animals that we forced into extinction and if it weren't for our interference they would still be a thriving part of the ecosystem. But remember, bringing anything into an ecosystem that has gone on without it could be dangerous. If we were to reintroduce these species to their environment we will have to stabilize the animals around it, for example introducing more prey so that they don't over hunt or thinning out predators and their predator's prey. If we were to bring them back we would need to be careful not to drive any other animals to being endangered or going extinct. Yet if this was an animal that went extinct without any human interference whatsoever then leave it extinct. If it wasn't fit enough to survive the first time then why would it be different now?

[WildWolf-]

I don't think it would be a good idea to bring extinct animals back. They could become a threat to both humans and animals. What if we brought an extinct animal back and it helped with the extinction of another? Also, the new environment it would be dumped into would be confusing to the animal, and it would most likely be killed quickly.

I think though, that if we had to bring back an animal, we should bring back the baiji, if it IS extinct. The baiji was alive just years ago, so it probably would be fine.

[D0m]

I don't think we should because firstly Jurrasic Park and also the places they onced lived in has changed so much, they wouldn't survive anyway.
And the cost of keeping these guys alive would be massive, whatever animal it is.

[La Striata]

I'm really surprised no one has mentioned cloning the elephant bird of Madagascar (a flightless, three metre tall cousin of the kiwi), which was wiped out around 400 years ago. I would endorse its cloning, even if the only way to keep it alive would be to have it forever in captivity (the same thing has been done for Pere David's deer).

[Granger]

Definitely agree with what has been previously stated, recent extinctions within a couple hundred years. Namely, I'd prefer species to be brought back if they are deemed beneficial to the environment, not so much for entertainment and whatnot. But then, deeming certain species as beneficial is pretty tricky.. So I'm tentative on that opinion as well. XD

[D0m]

Definitely agree with what has been previously stated, recent extinctions within a couple hundred years. Namely, I'd prefer species to be brought back if they are deemed beneficial to the environment, not so much for entertainment and whatnot. But then, deeming certain species as beneficial is pretty tricky.. So I'm tentative on that opinion as well. XD

agree, bringing them back for entertainment purposes is a waste of time but if they are going to be beneficial to the environment then it would be okay. Although once again I agree with you here Liver to the fact it is hard to find out if they are going to benefit the environment because they've been gone a while...