• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

They're supposed to be extinct

What is 'supposed' meant to mean in this context? Sounds kinda fatalistic to me...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
cyborg said:
So I would like to re-frame the question: what do you want to achieve by manipulating the course of extinction?
Click to expand...

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, 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, 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
 
Dr Adequate said:
"If we don't play god, who will?" - James Watson
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
Dogdoctor said:
Yeah thats right they have 2 lines of hybrids that are then crossed to produce the final product.
Click to expand...
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).

Dogdoctor said:
Huh? I am not sure what birds you are talking about.
Click to expand...

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

Dogdoctor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Dogdoctor said:
Much pet food is made from by-products of human food industry.
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dakotajudo said:
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).
Click to expand...
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 ... "
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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. :)
 
Theory Has It

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"
 
Is having cute, fluffy, doe-eyed offspring a natural or artificial selection trait in this (new) context?
 
Loss Leader said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...85.400-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.)
 
Cuddles said:
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...85.400-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.)
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom