Ought Man's discovery of cloning technology fix his errors and bring back the dodo bird and the mammoth?

Answer 1

I think not. As sad and terribly wrong the actions of man that brought about such things as an extinction of a species, bringing them back would be just as wrong, and perhaps worse.

Once a species is gone from an area, the ecosystem in which it lives changes. Re-introducing the species thousands, hundreds or even a few tens of years later would only serve to disturb again the ecosystem, and possible cause distress or, in extreme cases, extinction to other species of animal, insect or plant.

Another negative aspect of this would be that there would be less reason for the governments on this planet to protect endangered species. If man could bring back the Passenger Pigeon or the Great Auk or the Caribbean Monk Seal or the Oregon Bison, for example, what lesson was learned regarding the sheer slaughter of these animals? Whatever fad or fancy people had for parts, whether for their hide, their taste or their chemical makeup, of endangered animals would then be acceptable because we could always just "bring them back", at the total disregard for the animals or the aforementioned ecosystems in which they live. This would be akin to saying that we can do evil today because we know we will be forgiven tomorrow.

Answer 2

If we see a bridge should we blindly just leap off it without examining the reasons and repercussions of our actions beforehand? I think that cloning technology offers mankind some amazing possibilities, but to begin resurrecting extinct species is probably not a wise use of our time.

We've got more pressing matters to attend to right now, the chief of which is our own impending extinction at the hands of an ever warming world which could choose to wipe us away with flood, or even still some rock in space which could crash down and blot out the sun, killing all life on the planet.

We should probably put cloning on the backburner for a while and figure out how to deflect the metorite which is going to pass uncomfortably close to our planet.

Check this link for April 15, 2029. Apophis.

Answer 3

As it happens, I've just been reading Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestors Tale", and apparantly, at the time of writing his book (published 2004), scientists were excavating a frozen mammoth from the Siberian permafrost in the hope of extracting enough DNA to grow a new mammoth, cloned in the womb of a modern elephant.....you could google this.

I agree with what others have been saying though, what good is it to bring back animals from extinction when their dwellings have been occupied or destroyed by humans, it just seems like a fruitless effort imo though I understand your point completely.

Answer 4

"Cloning" is not an easy process to perform. It does not solve problems, because you actually need a living organism of the species you want to clone to be alive today to provide a womb for the cloned fetus to grow in.

There have been talks about bringing the mammoth back by using an elephant's womb, but that would provide a heap of problems. Like the fact that elephants today live in hot environments, and mammoths lived in the ice age. The cloned mammoth would die of heat stroke within the hour.

Answer 5

We should focus on saving the animals that are still with us from going extinct. Species are going extinct all the time.

Answer 6

Refer to Jurassic Park. lmao....we're not that good yet. It's cloning. Not resurrection.

Answer 7

To quote Jeff Goldbloom in Jaurasic Park, "You were so gun ho on doing it because you could, you didnt stop to think if you SHOULD."

Jeff Goldbloom is hot, so it must be true.


.

Answer 8

Interesting thought, but they have lost their place in the ecosystem, so it wouldn't work.

Answer 9

and what would be the point bringing back animals that we have destroyed their habitats ?

Answer 10

yes.