If Extinct Species Can Be Brought Back... Should We? 299
retroworks writes "Rebecca J. Rosen interviews experts in this edition of The Atlantic, to ask about the ethics and wisdom of using cloning, backbreeding, or genome editing. Over 90% of species ever to exist on earth are no more. The article ponders the moral and environmental challenges of humans reintroducing species which humans made extinct."
Moral? (Score:4, Funny)
I want my Dodo-burger and my Moa-burger too.
They can wait with the elephant bird and the terror bird until I get peckish again.
Gastornis parisiensis they can keep, I don't want them to tread on my feet.
But more seriously, instead of editing the genes so that Californian Grizzly doesn't eat people, they could do some editing so that they can be employed to pick oranges, that would be the day.
If we're talking about my Mother-in-law... (Score:4, Funny)
If we're talking about my Mother-in-law, I think we all agree the answer is 'no.'
Mr. Hammond, the phones are working. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If we exterminated them... (Score:5, Funny)
And then make it extinct again when we decide it was a bad idea...
It sends a strong message (Score:5, Funny)
We made a species extinct, then brought it back, then made it extinct again!
No flightless bird f*cks with humanity.
Re:No! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Moral? (Score:5, Funny)
We have a moral, ethical and even culinary duty to find out what dinosaurs tasted like. For science.
Re:Moral? (Score:5, Funny)
Like chicken, duh!
Re:Moral? (Score:4, Funny)
...
But more seriously, instead of editing the genes so that Californian Grizzly doesn't eat people, they could do some editing so that they can be employed to pick oranges, that would be the day.
Whoa, slow down. if we get the bears to pick oranges, what are the illegals going to do?
Well, we'll genetically engineer them to eat people, filling the niche left by the orange picking grizzlies and thus restoring the balance of nature.
It's about Assigning Blame (Score:2, Funny)
Clearly, George Bush and SUVs are to blame!
Re:Moral? (Score:4, Funny)
No, you don't want Dodo-burger. The dutch sailors who first encountered the birds tried eating them, but concluded the birds were barely-edible and taste terrible.
Nothing a few hours of boiling and a shitload of garlic can't fix.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Moral? (Score:5, Funny)
(1) Put dodo bits and a rock in a pot of boiling water.
(2) When rock is tender (easily push a fork through it) - dodo is done
(3) Season as desired.
Re:Moral? (Score:4, Funny)
>Moa was apparently delicious... hence becoming extinct.
I disagree with your premise. Chickens, cattle, pigs and sheep all exist today in numbers far beyond what they would have under natural conditions. The only logical conclusion is that being tasty to humans is actually an evolved survival trait (from the point of view of the species as a whole - not the individual members who get eaten).
Re:whether we should do it (Score:4, Funny)
There's a lot of early snark going on here. But they're missing an Elephant In The Room. What about the Religious questions? "God put them there, we killed them off, so of course we should do God's Will to put them back!" The article dares to mention "the natural evolution of Earth". Oh, I'm sorry, 41% (or whatever it is now) doesn't believe in evolution, right?
New wrinkle. Watch them try to Patent the processes that create the extinct animals. Wanna see what that trial looks like? "The Samsung Grizzly looks too much like Apple's iBear! Cease and Desist and re-Extinct the Samsung Grizzly!"
So if you're gonna get into ethics, get into ALL of them.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, yes. But it's much less of an ethical issue to bring back the Dodo bird than to bring back a T-Rex.
At least for the species that were wiped out by mankind, we know we can wipe them out again if they become a problem.