The prospect of resurrecting species through cloning or genetic reconstruction - with tools such as CRISPR gene-editing - has caught the imagination of scientists and the public alike.
With the new advances in genetic engineering, many researchers believe it’s time to start thinking seriously about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones could do the most good for ecosystems. Supporters have also suggested that species revivalism could help to develop ways of saving currently endangered species.
While species that have gone extinct within the last few thousand years may be candidates for de-extinction (also known as resurrection biology), some people argue that it may not be such a good idea to have moa, sabretooth cats, and woolly mammoths roaming the Earth again.
People against de-extinction have argued that this research may take resources away from conservation efforts – which would actually put even more species at risk of extinction. They also note that reintroduced species may not be able to survive in the wild, since their old habitats are gone, they wouldn’t be prepared for unfamiliar predators, and their immune systems may not be able to deal with new pathogens.
On the other hand, some say there’s a moral obligation to bring back some extinct animals, especially ones that vanished from human causes such as hunting and habitat destruction. Other scientists believe that resurrecting vanished species should only focus on conservation benefits by bringing back recently extinct species rather than ancient ones.
What are your thoughts on bringing extinct species back from the dead?
There is a reason species go extinct. It is all in the plan. Do not resurrect.
You assume therefor there is an architect of this plan?
Extinction is a general term that is defined into different categories. Only animals that were driven into extinction (anthropogenic) and can be brought back should be considered and even then after consideration of habitat. This is a rescue rather than a “de-extinction.” NO species from past geological periods should be “resurrected,” It would not only be cruel but also dangerous. Only animals and plants extinct due to human greed and irresponsibility over the lastg millennium should be considered after a commission vote by evolutionary biologists, epidemiologists, ecologists and absolutely NO agriculturists or politicians allowed.
If so there would have to be a very good special reason. Aimless resurrection so to say for the fun of it might turn out harmful to that species as well as the surroundings. The now newcomer would find it either too hard to create a niche, or too easy and there would be great risks at overturning hard won balances. Appealing as it may seem at first sight I am afraid my answer would be no, let´s not do that. But I understand it is already on its way!
If extinctions and endangerments are issue, then resurrections here and there would seem good. I’d love to see science clone and bring to life all extinct hominid species for which we have DNA: Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Antecessor. I suppose the ethical justification for this feat would relate to a woman’s reporductive rights, and the surrogate would be some very comitted young female scientist. The value of that knowledge . . .
A very difficult issue. The planet is already running out of space for existing species, so if this is done, it needs to be done very carefully. Perhaps we should concentrate more on trying to avoid wiping out more species. The Hornsea windfarm that looks as though it might wipe out kittiwakes is one example.
I'd like to see the Dodo and the passenger pigeon resurrected, they were killed by man, because they were just easy to kill
ptobably a few more that are worth bringing back
With all due respect to annacates’s enthusiasm, I agree completely with Trebor171. Scientist’s ga-ga meddling with genetic engineering has gotten us the abominable by-products of GMO foods, the fallout of which has been proven cancer, super-weeds, and a super-arrogant industrial/chemical strong-arm food industry that will do absolutely anything to satisfy its “divine right” to mess with nature. Ironic because it was World War II that grew these industries and they’ve been trying to stay fat ever since. But we have GMO labeling now, which goes to show what people really think of GMO. Does anyone need to watch Jurrassic Park again to be reminded, or see how the covid-19 pandemic was sprung? The animals that are on ice thrived then for a reason and for those conditions. We don’t have those now. And we would probably just kill them all off again anyway. Maybe King Kong is a better movie to watch haha. Thanks.
I totally agree with you.
We should not be the hand of God to Genetically Engineer / Manipulate or Resurrect Extinct Species. I love your example of Jurassic Park. With good intentions as Scientists, unexpected things can & will go wrong. (No Dino’s Please).
Hard Rain Pictures & Entertainment LLC.
I would love to see a Dodo bird or Wooly Ma.moth. But don't you think we should try to save the creatures that are near extinction so we can learn how to keep things alive.
This is already being done. DNA from species that have gone extinct in our time are being used to continue the species usuing surrogate moms. My concern is mixing human and animal DNA like the “scientist?” did in China. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Antecessor DNA is still with us in our DNA, What comes after us?.
So what really is the difference between human and ANIMAL DNA.?
I would have no objection to species being resurrected providing that they could adapt to the vegetation that is currently available. I would hate to think of extremely large predators roaming the earth, largely because I think that humans would be a primary food source but also because I think that they would be exploited for big game hunting.
No! Scientists should never resurrect extincted species because there are hardly enough food or shelter for whales, elephants, polar bears, and other animals that are on the current extinct list. Moreover humans barely have a good record taking care of species on the current extinct list. In the name of progressive capitalism, capitalists have destroyed species’ homes in the forests all over the world...
No, we shouldn’t resurrect extinct species. There are long lists of critically endangered, endangered, and at-risk species worldwide, and we should fund saving them and their habitats instead of playing scientific games with species that have already been lost. Tens of thousandfs of species are currently being lost to fires in the Amazon so why bother about those that have gone extinct when there are living species that desperately need rescuing? Besides, even if an individual of an extinct species could be physically resurrected, how would its natural instincts, its essence, ever be recovered? Would it be make or female? How would it breed? A large number of individuals would need to be resurrected to make a species viable. Much better to mourn the loss of extinct species and do whatever we can to save those that we are driving to extinction.
Okay, I think I can sum up the answer to this conversation: Jurassic Park #1-5.
Somebody raised the question about similarity between human DNA and animal DNA? Which brings over to the possibility of mingling and produce hybrids? This may tempt not so ethically minded persons to make unfortunate experiments with unimaginable consequences. I am thinking centaurs or the like and some very questionable impact on existing populations. I know for instance the cultivated salmons in Norwegian fjords caught sicknesses that were brought on to the wild populations with bad consequences….Personally I am against the ongoing messing with the DNA of all sorts, and especially questionable would be production of the already extinct ones. Once the cat is out of the box….which one can suspect it already is in some far corner.
Resurrecting extinct species is an extremely cruel concept. Please try to think clearly. Where is the resurrected animal going to live? In a laboratory – to be experimented on? A wild animal needs a habitat. She or he needs parents, a family, a herd, a flock, a mate – in short, a social system and companionship. Animals are not insentient things. They are not objects to be experimented on. Where is the animal going to find food? Where is her natural diet? Does she migrate? Where to? Does she have natural prey or predators? Will she spend her life completely alone? Will she have any kind of natural life? Will there be any other species that she can recognize? Any forests or grasslands that are familar to her? Of course not. An animal in such conditions would die quickly after a short miserable life. And an animal kept in a tiny artifical environment, surrounded by scientists, with curiosity, but lacking in compassion – or they would never have inflicted this life on any animal – would suffer greatly. If one knows nothing at all about the lives, the emotions, and the sentience of wild animals, one should not subject them to lives of cruelty and desolation.
Sharon St Joan
I think since we are now in a position to play god and do it better by being able to get rid of mutant DNA we should take advantage and resurrect and create animals that we have brought to extinction.
To this Idea with Scientist's bringing back extinct species, I'd say did anybody learn anything from Jurassic Park?
To me this sounds a lot like science attempts at Controlling nature which consequently, in the end could be quite devastating simply because Nature is not a push over Nature will fight back.
Professor Warwick Kerr he's an intriguing Geneticist Scientist, Professor Kerr tried to represent Science in a Positive manner.
He had the best intentions in utilizing Science after observing his fellow people struggling against poverty an dictatorship, He tried to create Bees that could with stand the harsh climate of Brazil.
Again Professor Kerr had the best intentions for his People using Science to help them out of poverty.
Unfortunately, Professor Kerr's more known for those Killer Bees He inadvertedly created that wound up escaping thanks impart to a Student of his and where The Killer Bees are said to still remain in Brazil.
Professor Kerr's idea was born out of love for country an his fellow people I'm not picking up on the love from scientist intent on bringing dead animal's back to Life. It's more like Self-interest is behind this endeavor.
Remember me earlier mentioning that Nature fights back when Nature is Wronged by People?
In the 1930s an event took place that still leaves people to this day scratching their heads in wonder and that was The Great Dust Bowl that Plagued The Great Plains of The United States.
Science would eventually come into play to explain what happened as a result of these Dust Storms and seemingly Biblical like plagued tormenting The People out in The West.
During these most trying circumstances that tested people's durability as a result of this one Man Made Environmental Disaster. It also helped Franklin D. Roosevelt being President at The Time Nature went too War with Man.
I first learned of The Dust Bowl first by my mom because my grandfather's family came to California during the Dust Bowl.
He was Subjected to being referred to as an "Okie" most people believed that The Dust Bowl was only taking place in the state of Oklahoma at that time.
I was amazed by this family history because my grandfather was White.
On a side note learning of this Family History is probably why I like The Country song Alison Krauss' band sing's Dust Bowl Children.
It was incredulous on how the Dust Storms even began.
An The fact the Farmers did it not knowing the consequences of these seemingly normal ways too traditionally Farm Land took me a back. All these reasons why Nature declared War on Us.
Science stepped in eventually after the unfortunate Farmers were forced too live through these unrelenting Dust Storms for about 8 year's into this moment in History an tried to teach Conservation Methods to the Farmer's about The Soil.
A few People were a bit stubborn and stuck in their ways on how to go about wrestling out a living for their families from The Land with these New Methods but it eventually won them over.
The people went ahead to try these New Method's it did wind up relieving the Farmer's but, unfortunately the Farmer's forgot the harsh lessons of the 1930s an almost experienced another set of Dust Storms in the 1950s in Oklahoma.
Anyone interested in learning more about The Dust Bowl Ken Burns two parter series is on Ytube entitled The Great Plow up Part 1 & Part 2 the documentary explains far more than I ever could on the situation.
My point is assuming anything can be controlled especially something like extinct species of animal's or plant's seems to be motivated through Because I can and Nobody is going too tell me different that is the attitude I'm seeing here.
It wasn't the people's intention to cause those environmental and Natural catastrophes that hurt so many people it was all totally random.
The Scientist bringing some animal or plant back too life that's not an accident like in the case of The Killer Bees or The Dust Storms out on The Plains that's on purpose.
I do not believe in bringing extinct animal's back too life so it shouldn't happen. Well until next time Everyone, Goodbye!
Where would it stop? Say no RIGHT NOW. These scientists do not own the world. They take free rein if it though, to our peril. Who said you can go poking holes in our atmosphere with your rockets etc? Various experiments on people, like the one in progress right now. Who said that is okay??? Who says what or WHO might be resurrected yet? Nope. Cool idea,… but no thanks