Should We "Re-create" Nature?

or are we just messing about with stuff we can't actually handle?

I was just reading this, on yahoo, and it got me thinking:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jurassic-park-style--rebirths--could-happen---but-the-clones-might-not-be-what-we-expect-124700526.html#eft6RJ

Whilst all this sounds really exciting, what quality of life could we actually give to these "animals"?

Take the example of the Mammoth: they say that although DNA exists, and the possibility IS there, the closest thing to be able to harbour it would be the African elephant (which isn't actually close in relation). The "Mammoth" would come out looking and acting like a mammoth, but the elephant would likely reject it, thus leaving it to be reared by humans and, in effect, likely losing it's instincts.

So, would it then actually be a "mammoth"? Or just a "thing"?

Apparently, there are talks of "bringing back" the Sabre-toothed tiger, giant sloths, the dodo, the pyreanian Ibex and even Neanderthal babies.....and artificial wombs for animals and even humans are possible within the next 16 years.

Personally, I'm very intrigued.....but very worried about the consequences.

Is this just all madness?

Or can any good actually come of it?

Interesting that this is possible, thoroughly unwise to bring back something that has been extinct as long as the mammoth. On the other hand, it is debatable whether it would not be beneficial to bring back animals that went extinct fairly recently, e.g. the dodo (contrary to popular belief they went extinct because of colonists' dogs eating all their eggs), Tasmanian tigers, Baiji river dolphin, etc. Animals are going extinct as we speak, most of them because of active efforts by profit-seeking human beings completely devoid of morals (like the Chinese with the Baiji river dolphin), not for any natural reasons, as was the case with the mammoth.

I think planet earth is so over crowded right now, and can barely support all the species already existing. Why bring in more and create more problems? Let's care for the health of the planet first. Just my opinion.

I'm bumping this because it's the most interesting topic we've had here in ages. Go Thistleboy! If you're ever in the Zeeland-area, I owe you a beer.

@Noorie:

Wouldn't you say that restoring animals that recently went extinct due to harmful negligence or even direct intent by human beings would be part of caring for the health of the planet?

I really do not know about that. I feel our planet is just so over crowded, I am not sure it could bear the strain of sustaining more life. I know I am putting this rather badly; hope you understand what I mean. I could be completely wrong...
I think what is required is reducing our carbon footprint, growing more plant life, leaving natural forests etc alone, leaving wildlife alone, not destroying the habitats of other creatures, living with nature, not against it...
Just my opinion.

Does "living with nature, not against it" not involve restoring the wanton damage done by industry, which is leading to the extinction of species even as we speak? Also, when you say "the strain of sustaining more life", you are referring to absolute numbers of living creatures, not the number of different species. In fact, the extinction of a single species can lead to a population explosion, as, for instance, the demise of a single predator can lead to a population of prey animals no longer being checked. As animals that are commonly prey to predators have a far higher rate of reproduction to survive the situation of being preyed on, this would lead to larger numbers of animals living in the same habitat.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I'm bumping this because it's the most interesting topic we've had here in ages. Go Thistleboy! If you're ever in the Zeeland-area, I owe you a beer.

[/QUOTE]

I'd really love that :-)

I'll let you know when I'm coming over :p

Back onto topic, though - I can actually see where noorie is coming from, but would lean more with TQ's sentiment. I'd be extremely worried about the condition of the "re-born" animals - however, if it can be done without any major flaw, then I think I'd welcome it. We (humans) are the single most destructive animals on the planet, yet we also have a conscience, humility and remorse (I'd hope) to undo what we've done wrong to this world. Hopefully, we also have the brains and tech to undo what we've done. That can only be a positive.

^ not that I'm implying we're *totally* responsible for the loss of animals (as nature, after all, is nature).

Wow Thistleboy, you have really come up with a HUGE topic here. I agree with you and TQ in many ways, but this topic is way too complex. Two years ago I travelled to some really poor regions of India, and was shocked to see the level of poverty there. Killing tigers is totally banned there (and very rightly so!), but what do the starving hordes care? Killing one tiger for some rich guy will feed their family for over a year! So I do not think they have the luxury to think about reviving extinct species.Nor do they care very much about conserving any endangered species. All they care about is their own survival.
And yet the thought of the future generations not being able to see tigers (or any other species) first hand is just terrible to me.
I think this topic is getting too complex for me.... :)

Yes. Maybe. If we have the ability, maybe we (humans) should clone/recreate these extinct animals, but the ethics will always be tricky and probably sad at times. Science and ethics. I don't think it would be fair to unleash a new predator animal in a currently balanced ecosystem. Zoos and fenced areas with human assistance maybe for the bigger animals; maybe the birds would be OK in the wild, but also would be competing for resources. I think if we could go back in time and somehow communicate with a member of a now-extinct species, most likely that creature would want its kind to survive. If we could communicate with other competing animals, who are still thriving, they might say that they would prefer things to stay as they are now, so as to not shake things up too much. By the way, I didn't feed the birds all summer because I didn't want to attract bears and there were plenty of insects for them to eat. Just put out bird seed yesterday evening a couple of hours before dark and didn't see any birds. Maybe they forgot or got discouraged with me and flew south, I thought. No. This morning, saw a blue jay and a few other little birds in my bird feeding area - and several of the crows (I think the smartest of the birds).

[QUOTE] [b]noorie wrote:[/b]

Wow Thistleboy, you have really come up with a HUGE topic here. I agree with you and TQ in many ways, but this topic is way too complex. Two years ago I travelled to some really poor regions of India, and was shocked to see the level of poverty there. Killing tigers is totally banned there (and very rightly so!), but what do the starving hordes care? Killing one tiger for some rich guy will feed their family for over a year! So I do not think they have the luxury to think about reviving extinct species.Nor do they care very much about conserving any endangered species. All they care about is their own survival.
And yet the thought of the future generations not being able to see tigers (or any other species) first hand is just terrible to me.
I think this topic is getting too complex for me.... :)[/QUOTE]

That's a very thoughtful piece of insight. I haven't thought of it like that, yet, like you, the thought of future generations NOT being able to see the tiger is heartbreaking. I'm a real animal lover - sometimes I think I'd rather sit with a bunch of them rather than talk to another of my own kind as, sometimes, I'm just so disgusted with what I see around me. That doesn't mean I like to see folk starving, dying or suffering (which is the humility that others see in me), but I seem to be more touched by the plight of animals. I dunno - maybe I'm weird and need to think more about it more. You're right noorie, this is a very complex one indeed.

[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]

You're right noorie, this is a very complex one indeed.

[/QUOTE]

And you thought it up! :)
Actually I mentioned your topic to a couple of friends over coffee, and you provided us with a couple of hours of arguments and intense discussion. And then we all got up with headaches. So, thanks...? :)

^ LOL. I prescribe Migraleve for you all :p

If you drink too much alcohol, you get a hangover. You can't blame that on the liquor producer. But we might have to add a disclaimer:

Warning: immoderate discussion may adversely affect your health, resulting in headache, sore throat and damaged social relations. Enjoy discussion in moderation

:P