An example: the Tasmanian tiger.
2006-09-07 00:46:03 · 12 answers · asked by alcáçovas 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
depnds on the reason for extinction, man or nature, if it's man then yes we should put right the actions we did, but if it's a natural reason then nature no longer had a place for them, you know... introducing an animal thats got no natural preditors in the environment would flouresh and become a pest.
2006-09-07 00:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by jmather62 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Extinct animals should not be brought back because there's probably a good reason why they went extinct in the first place (assuming natural causes are to blame, i.e. mammoth). They probably would not be able to fit into the ecosystem anymore, and would probably just throw a whole bunch of other stuff off if reintroduced.
I don't think attempting to recreate the Tasmanian Tiger will make up for us wiping them out. We can't just rid the Earth of any species we'd like, and bring them back whenever our moods change. We should take better care to preserve the species that are still here before we try to bring back what's already been destroyed. We can hardly preserve and live harmoniously with what yet still lives and thrives!
I don't know if we yet have the technology to bring back a creature long extinct - I do not think it would be a true "clone."
2006-09-07 19:13:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This would probably open a 'can of worms' in the way of ethical debate. . The reason a lot of animals went extinct is usually lack of room (ie human encroachment) So where would we put these animals if we did bring them back.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see a Tassie Tiger. But even if they were brought back from extinction, I would only ever see it in the zoo.
How many animals would end up locked up in cages in labs somewhere.
Or locked in a zoo, with a big sign up explaining that by the miracle of modern science..they have managed to clone a few and here one is....ta DA! This would not be right.
2006-09-07 01:02:46 · answer #3 · answered by tui 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i may be very attracted to witnessing a revival of an extinct animal. I hate the term "enjoying God", why use it while on a daily basis all we do is attempting to extends our lives by enjoying god. Why can we bypass to the docs? Why can we get surgical procedures? Why can we make investments our time and funds for scientist to locate new remedies? Cloning can deliver approximately new scientific breakthroughs. If we don't supply it a gamble, then Species in this worldwide (inclusive of human beings) has a extra robust share of dying at a quicker fee. i elect to make certain cloning carried out to an extinct animal. They should be extra lower back, does not you have chose existence mysteries solved?
2016-12-12 04:08:54 · answer #4 · answered by kull 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that with current technology, some more recently extinct animals may be cloned depending on what preserved DNA they have around, those long gone I doubt you will see Juarrasic park any time soon.
Is it moral to clone *animals*, yes.
God gave domain over the animals to man.
now people that is a different story.
2006-09-10 16:42:15 · answer #5 · answered by Intersect 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we should clone any extinct animals, there is no longer a place for them here, not even in zoos. No one knows really what they ate, and this could lead to suffering. Has for if cloning extinct animals, probably, if you have the DNA. But this makes me think of Jurassic Park and it going horribly wrong if they do succeed..
2006-09-08 02:05:39 · answer #6 · answered by Harpoona 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's currently possible for the almost extinct animals using somatic cell nuclear transfer (what most people call cloning). Those that we have no living cells for are currently beyond our ability to bring back. As far as the ethics of it, currently the technology is so self limiting that any ethical debate is a bit unnecessary (we aren't going to have viable populations using the technologies we currently have), unless of course you are simply opposed to any animal experimentation, in which case you would hate this as well.
2006-09-07 03:05:30 · answer #7 · answered by gibbon 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's absolutely possible and ethical and moral do clone -- even humans. For example, if something happened to one of my kids (death), I would be determined to clone that same child and start over with him/her. I haven't heard a decent argument (just a lot of arguments) yet about what could be wrong with that.
2006-09-07 00:53:17 · answer #8 · answered by yuntaa_dba 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is possible, scientists have even thought up ways of cloning a dinosour but haven't actually done it. I think it goes something like this, a mosiquito has drawn blood out of a dinosour has got stuck in a trees sap and preserved. The blood which is taken out of the mosquito (dunno how exactly) and combined with a reptile egg, mostly likely to be a crocodile egg (A crocodile is more close to a dinosour then other creatures). They either take the blood out or something else. They then let the egg hatch and you have a dinosour.
2006-09-07 06:01:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wouldn't know if its possible as yet, but it will be some day. The moral question though is interesting, it would be immoral not to save a species in my book, but would the animal in question be morally outraged if we were to do that. Man it would seem thinks he is the moral conscience of all fellow animals is he ?
2006-09-07 00:56:49 · answer #10 · answered by Jim G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋