Why cant we clone all the endangered species and increase their population?

Answer 1

There are a number of reasons why a cloning project to replicate endangered species is not feasible. Several problems have already been pointed out by other posters (so I won't "clone" their answers). But there are a few others that occur to me:

1. It would be very difficult to find and capture many of the animals classified as endangered to use in a captive breeding program. Many animals would not survive the capture and transportation that would be required.

2. The cost of a captive breeding program would likely be prohibitive.

3. Captiver breeding programs would not work. It is better to protect the habitats of endangered species so they can reproduce naturally. If we try to clone these animals, we would surely want to produce enough of them to repopulate their natural habitats, but if we continue to allow those habitats to be exploited and destroyed we will have no place to release them.

4. Some animals (one of which is the Sumatran tiger) are endangered largely because they were killed by farmers due to the animal's attacks on domesticated animals or by other people who saw them as a threat to their families (venomous snakes are an example). Cloning these animals would not solve the habitat problem, and most people probably do not want to maintain cloned animals in captivity.

5. Where would we put (release) our cloned animals so they would be "safe" from human predation?

6. Who would decide which animals to clone, or to clone first? This issue would create significant disagreements among the (presumably) scientists who would manage the program. What happens when one guy wants to clone koalas and another guy wants to clone king cobras?

We should all look at the way Costa Rica manages its conservation efforts. CR does not pick a particular animal and declare it "protected." They pick a particular area of habitat and protect it and everything in it. This is, in my opinion, the best way to increase the populations of endangered animals.

.You have posed an interesting question. Please tell us what you think.

Answer 2

Well, in cloning you create an exact replica of the original animal. This would lead to a rather SEVERE type of inbreeding. Those animals released would be multiple copies of (at best) a hand full of animals. This can cause a male to breed with 6 females, all genetically identical. Then her young can reach breeding age and breed with another animal that is genetically it's brother or father, regardless of the fact that it is NOT in it's exact breeding line. They may actually wind up breeding with one that is it's EXACT genetic match. The birth defect and genetic mutation rates would skyrocket and this could actually cause the total destruction of the species even sooner.

Furthermore, there are concerns that cloned animals suffer from premature aging as the cells they are cloned from are already several years old at the time of cloning. This is still under investigation, but most cloned animals seem to have a much shorter life span than a "normal" animal.

Another problem is that increasing the number of animals does not increase the number of places for them to live. With no safe habitat, the animals can't survive. Even if there is a small preserve for them, there may already be as many as the territory can support. Larger populations would lead to stripping the food resources too quickly and mass starvation.

Answer 3

That would be expensive. Cloning is basically artificial insemination. In other words, you still need to implant the fertilized egg in a mother, the mother has to give birth, and the baby has to survive. A zoo might keep a small population this way, but no way you could do that to support a large wild population. Imagine the effort to catch all the females, implant an egg and then release them again!

You didn't think cloning was some way to just grow an unlimited supply of animals to maturity in jars did you? That is just science fiction.

Answer 4

Because cloning isn't that good of a science yet, clones are known to be faulty currently as well.

Also, it doesn't work if you don't stop the reason they're dying. It's great if you clone thousands of elephants, but if you don't get rid of the poachers, they'll still get slaughtered.

Or if you have a poison river, full of pollution, you can clone all the fish you like, once you put them in there they'll still die.

It's better to clean up the reasons causing the decline, for the most part animals can rebound in numbers on their own.

Answer 5

Two reasons:

1. Cloning has not been perfected to the point where what you propose can be done either in sufficient quantity or within reasonable economic bounds.

2. Increasing the populations by cloning would sharply reduce the genetic diversity and weaken the species.

Answer 6

Probably not. You need a female to carry the young until birth, and you won't create a male without male genetic information (considering mammals), so basically there's no advantage compared to mating or insemination, and the success ratio is way lower. Plus it doesn't increase genetic variability in the population. Maybe if you only had females and a male's genetic information without a possibility of obtaining sperms...

Answer 7

Dude you are right. I have been saying this for years. Just get samples of all species. No more BS about driving animals from the face of the earth.

Answer 8

Cloned animals tend to have more defects and shorter life spans.

Answer 9

sounds like a plan

Answer 10

souds like a great idea, yet its very bad. unsafe and expensive.