They're supposed to be extinct

[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 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.

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]

Got any stuffing?

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

 

[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.