Is it ethical to bring back extinct species of animal or plant?

Is it ethical to bring back extinct species of aninal or plant?

http://rt.com/files/news/mammoth-clo...-body-baby.jpg

Increasingly in the scientific community there has been talk of bringing back the Mammoth which experts are more and more keen on trying considering how well preserved Mammoth DNA has been found in frozen specimens in the Siberian wilderness: meaning that it may be possible to implant the Mammoth into the womb of a mother elephant thus bringing the species largely back into existence using a close relative (the Elephant). Whilst this may be harder for other animals such as the Dodo which are not as well preserved due to warmer climates and which have no close living relatives as similar as Mammoths and Elephants are, with scientific advances it is more and more likely that it will be possible to bring back animals that used to walk this Earth just from their fossils or bones.

But is this ethical? Should mankind seek to influence nature in such an unnatural way considering the changes bringing back species can have? For example, with the extinction of the Mammoth across Russia and Siberia, this allowed for the growth of birch forests which is thought to have led to a cooler climate as a result. Others would also say that reviving animals and plants long gone messes with the natural order, and that animals like Mammoths were going extinct naturally anyway as they were failing to adapt to changes on the Earth.

Do you think it ethical? Do you think it should be restricted to research captivity only? Do you think some species should be carefully reintroduced to the wild?

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

---

The debate is open to you.

There's nothing wrong with it in my opinion, as long as they aren't bringing back anything that could be a threat to us. It'd be good to bring back some for scientific study, not just mass-producing them although there's still nothing wrong with that as long as it's safe enough.

Oh and as long as it's not bringing back some sort of extinct spider or something similar. That would be terrible. :(

It'd be fairly pointless and no doubt upset the ecosystem so would only be a viable option for animals that can be kept in captivity, so that's where the real ethics of the situation would lie in my opinion. I have no problem personally with DNA experiments but I imagine there would be quite some opposition to breeding/creating an entire species purely for existence in captivity.

Also interesting that you mentioned the dodo, this isn't really related but apparently no-one actually knows what a dodo properly looks/looked like because every single last one of them was eaten out of existence and the only preserved body (which was only partially complete anyway) got destroyed in a fire with only the skull remaining in 1755... so any pictures of its body are complete fabrications :P

It really depends how and why they went extinct. Mammoths are pointless as they're not designed for this climate, as are some plants which died off due to changes in their previous environments. If they were hunted and killed off by man then may be it will be fine to try and bring them back - but that really depends on if the environment is suitable for them or if they are even needed as evolution usually finds a way of replacing what has been removed.

That said, it will have to be a perfect re-creation of the animals or plants as no doubt there would be some sort of issue that arises - especially the birth problem where they die almost instantly or finding a way for them to reproduce. I think there was a story of a goat that died shortly after being born.

It's a hot and talked about topic, don't get me wrong. I agree with a some of the comments listed above. I agree in saying that confinement should be the ideal place for study, as yes, this could mess with the environment and ecosystem. We don't want other extinctions. As long is it's not dinosaurs or extremely large lizards, I'm coolio with that. :P

Yes, personally I reckon it will be a huge step in technology and science, however I can see too many risks alongside them. For example, all science enters into the wrong hands and that's impossible to stop and, without sounding too childish and being completely hypothetical, I can see something like Jurassic Park being tried and it will obviously fail. Even though this science, especially for things like dinosaurs, is a long way off, they will become huge risks to humans so I hope it doesn't come to that.

The more I think about it, actually, the more I dislike the idea. Taking on the example of the Mammoth, I bet as soon as they get it right and have a real life mammoth standing in front of them, the zoo's will go absolutely mad and start buying more and more of them until the only ones being bred are for captivity and that, although protecting endangered species, is completely unethical.

I'm stuck.

They haven't survived for a reason how do scientists think mammoth's are therefore; going to survive in the current words climate? Adaptation has evolved a lot since the mammoth and bringing them back would only be wrong as they'd not of adapted to the current world. In all honest I do not see anything wrong with it but only if it was a species that is able to survive in the current world climate.

No specie would be remotely considered a threat to any ecosystem than humans currently are. I agree that specie reintroduction could upset the ecosystem chains but that will not be comparable to what urban contact or alien species introduction can do to an ecosystem. Actually I highly doubt there will be a significant change in an ecosystem if a non-predator is introduced in low numbers i.e Stellar's sea cow.

But dodo for example, if reintroduced in Mauritius (which is already dealing with vegetation loss and deforestation due to agri-expansion) could accelerate the extinction of other species (non vertebrates) and even birds because of food and habitat competition. But then again there are examples of predator species whose introduction could actually prove to be good..like Barbary lion which could help and reduce over-grazing in sub-Sahara.

Anyway... I think.. humans should just concentrate more on conservation and not restricting any reintroductions currently. I haven't even seen one happening yet, except the mouth brooding frog in Australia. (what happened to it i wonder)

- - - Updated - - -

Just found out that the mouth brooding frog could not survive and it's extinction was in fact caused by humans, so... sad. I guess.

no, we shouldn't.
we destroy habitats every day by cutting down forests and pumping chemicals into the air. at the moment our eco-system is incredibly fragile with lions, tigers and bears expected to be extinct in the wild within the next 50 years (which will have a huge knock-on effect on species further down the food chain), so we should be working to preserve the species we have.
we have already caused countless extinctions and as our population rises more will follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velvet

lions, tigers and bears

---

Oh my!