"De-Extinction" and Zoos

Where do you stand on the prospects of "de-extinction"?

  • No, de-extinction shouldn't be carried out. It is unethical.

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • No, de-extinction shouldn't be carried out. It would take importance away from conservation efforts.

    Votes: 18 30.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction should be carried out, but the revived species should remain in captivity.

    Votes: 6 10.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction should be carried out, but only for species lost due to human activity.

    Votes: 19 31.7%

  • Yes, de-extinction and re-introduction should occur, but only for keystone species of ecosystems.

    Votes: 9 15.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction and re-introduction should occur, and all animals revived should be returned.

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Total voters
    60
Tapir Master said:
You could say they are animals, but they are still a prehistoric human species regardless.
Click to expand...
Humans are animals;)
Tapir Master said:
They will not survive in today’s climate. Not only their brains are still primal, but they wouldn’t be able to have education or even be trusted with today’s jobs.
Click to expand...
I don't think scientists want to de-extinct Neanderthals so they can go to school or work at the local coffee shop:D.
Tapir Master said:
Just your average discussion in Youtube comment sections.
Click to expand...
As @Onychorhynchus coronatus points out, the Youtube comment section is not exactly renowned for its scientific expertise, and it certainly shouldn't be used to base ones opinion on something as complicated as de-extinction.
 
Tapir Master said:
Speaking of absurd, there are scientists out there that want to bring back Neanderthals.

This is one de-extinction that I highly disagree with. Say what you will about mammoths and smilodons, but Neanderthals are worse for several reasons.

1) They cut way too close to human cloning. You could say they are animals, but they are still a prehistoric human species regardless.

2) They will not survive in today’s climate. Not only their brains are still primal, but they wouldn’t be able to have education or even be trusted with today’s jobs.

3) They are stronger than us and could be dangerous if not taken cared of. Imagine one fighting a modern human over a dispute, they would be beyond a mere injury. There’s also the debate if modern guns will even phase them.

This is a controversial subject, but it’s too important to not talk about.
Click to expand...


I really don't think that the chances of neanderthals being brought back are high enough for this to warrant much importance, concern or discussion. It is more of an interesting sci-fi style thought experiment to be talked about on youtube channels or reddit than anything else.

What is more interesting is the evidence that has emerged in recent years regarding interbreeding between neanderthals and cro-magnon man and the fact that approximately 1 to 4 percent of the modern human genome in Eurasian populations contains neanderthal DNA. Another interesting thing to contemplate (though we will probably never have a concise answer to this question) is what role our species played in the extinction of the neanderthal.

Did this occur indirectly due to competition or transmission of disease ? was it due to outright interspecies aggression ? or was it a combination of all of these factors which in conjunction with climatic change created an extinction vortex type situation ? We just dont know for sure and perhaps never will because the archeological record is so far drawing a blank in terms of evidence and prehistory is a radio silence in terms of looking for tangible clues.

Just like the origins of human art in the Magdalenian period of the Ice age we can only speculate and offer conjecture of what actually occurred and why this happened and this can only ever be educated guess work. Now and then we do catch little glimpses that reveal something of the interaction between the two species such as neanderthal DNA in modern humans which prove that interbreeding happened or a neanderthal skeleton being found in Israel with bone injuries consistent with a fatal stab wound from a cromagnon spear. However, these are such rare finds that we are almost always left with a very incomplete picture.

There is more reason to be ethically concerned IMO about the use of genetic engineering for selection of traits like physical beauty and above average intelligence in human (in the sense of our own species) reproduction and the consequences of this creating an elite of humans 2.0 and a genetic underclass a la Gattaca. Similarly, the existential threat posed by artificial intelligence is also a much more pertinent thing to be worried about IMO.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't see de-extinction of any species as is to be a realistic goal. It's far more likely that with gene editing of existing species new species altogether may arise/be engineered. That would bring its own set of ethical questions.
 
RatioTile said:
Honestly I don't see de-extinction of any species as is to be a realistic goal. It's far more likely that with gene editing of existing species new species altogether may arise/be engineered. That would bring its own set of ethical questions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are definitely right about that and right about the disturbing ethical consequences of this.

I actually don't think that the scenarios described in Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" of gene editing and engineering of animal species are that far fetched at all.
 
Last edited:
I think de-extinction is actually a great idea, but should only be used for species who died because of humans (passenger pigeons, dodos, golden toads, thylacines, etc) Animals who died of natural causes like the dinosaurs, should stay extinct. They had their fair shot at life, and they died due to natural causes, so it should stay that way. The last thing we need is a real-life Jurassic Park, and I think we all know what would probably happen next if that happened.

Although I have to admit, being able to see a Dilophosaurus in real life would be pretty epic :)
 
No dinosaurs, period.

Not to bring up the tired “Jurassic Park argument”, but they would cause more harm than help to our current environment. Especially certain carnivores.
 
Tapir Master said:
Smaller, possibly easier to clone, and would bring more positive effects to the environment.
Click to expand...

Worth it even in spite of the huge expenses necessary for cloning that could be allocated to conservation of still extant species of Columbidae like the tooth billed pigeon, Socorro dove and blue eyed ground dove ?

Personally, I dont think it would be but thats just my opinion and I'm a sceptic when it comes to de-extinction.
 
Tapir Master said:
Well played.

I mean more the bigger ones. Raptors, rexes, dactyls, etc.

But passengers are worth it.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late reply, I assume by dactyls you mean pterosaurs, which are not dinosaurs, but I agree that some pterosaurs, like azdarchoids, if they were cloned would probably be a bit difficult to keep, though nowhere near impossible.

Tapir Master said:
Not those raptors, velociraptors and related species. Those fast moving predators would be a problem, no?



Smaller, possibly easier to clone, and would bring more positive effects to the environment.
Click to expand...

A velociraptor would actually not be that hard to keep in my opinion, compared to many modern mammal predators they were quite unintelligent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top