Ethics of ressurecting extinct animals:

Originally posted by JS357
"Reversing the course of nature, or of evolution if you choose, may carry with it some risks."

My own attitude is that we are part of nature, for better or worse. If nature evolved a species that bring back extinct species, it's part of nature.

Someone will bring back extinct species if it can be done. Find who thinks it will benefit them and that's who it will be. We should do what's in our interests on this (whoever "we" are.)

That is all true, but I still think that proceeding cautiously is wise, even for those who see it as profitable.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hardly. I welcome all aspects of medical and biological research. I wasn't in the for or against camp of the re-establishment projects, just interested in what people had to say about it.

people misunderstood. they keep going on about ecology, whereas you asked about ethics. did you ask about ethics?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
people misunderstood. they keep going on about ecology, whereas you asked about ethics. did you ask about ethics?

Don't you think that policy on ecology could be ethical or unethical?

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-ethics-resurrecting-extinct-species.html

We may be able to it in a few years. But should we?

If the creature were to be put back into the wild in its natural habitat then
great! But that would not happen - they would end up in zoos if lucky or lab
cages. So I would be against it based on animal cruelty.

Originally posted by normbenign
Don't you think that policy on ecology could be ethical or unethical?

kind of like discussing the ethics of mathematics.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
kind of like discussing the ethics of mathematics.

Explain?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If the creature were to be put back into the wild in its natural habitat then
great! But that would not happen - they would end up in zoos if lucky or lab
cages. So I would be against it based on animal cruelty.

Do you think keeping pets is inherently unethical?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If the creature were to be put back into the wild in its natural habitat then
great! But that would not happen - they would end up in zoos if lucky or lab
cages. So I would be against it based on animal cruelty.

Are zoos, and farms unethical? If so, why?
What is so great and ethical about the natural habitat? Have you ever seen animals in their natural habitat? Its often not a pretty sight.
I have always wondered why the animal cruelty argument doesn't inexorably lead to the conclusion that we should sterilize all carnivores so that they go extinct.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are zoos, and farms unethical? If so, why?
What is so great and ethical about the natural habitat? Have you ever seen animals in their natural habitat? Its often not a pretty sight.
I have always wondered why the animal cruelty argument doesn't inexorably lead to the conclusion that we should sterilize all carnivores so that they go extinct.

We should consider the ethical implications of our impact on nature because it is in our nature.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you think keeping pets is inherently unethical?

I have no idea if this applies to other kept species, but cats kept as pets on average live three times longer than feral cats. The difference is much greater at the extremes.

Originally posted by normbenign
Explain?

mathematics is not ethical or non ethical. it is nonsense to talk about the ethics of mathematics.

chemistry is not ethical or non-ethical. what you do with chemical compounds might be. just doing chemical experiments is as ethical as photosynthesis is.

the op simply asked the ethics of resurrecting animals. that is not a matter of ethics. if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release them into the wild, it is a matter of ecology, and still not a matter of ethics. it becomes a matter of ethics when you do as i suggested and make hamburgers out of velociraptors. we can discuss ethics then

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you resurrect enough extinct animals to make an impact and then release them into the wild, it is a matter of ecology, and still not a matter of ethics. it becomes a matter of ethics when you do as i suggested and make hamburgers out of velociraptors.

If one proposed to release enough extinct animals into the wild to make an impact, it'd most surely raise ethical questions. Such a decision could destroy habitats, disturb ecosystems, wipe out species, damage or even end livelihoods. Causing ecological impacts in a case like this - whether knowingly or carelessly - would certainly be "a matter of ethics".

Originally posted by FMF
If one proposed to release enough extinct animals into the wild to make an impact, it'd most surely raise ethical questions. Such a decision could destroy habitats, disturb ecosystems, wipe out species, damage or even end livelihoods. Causing ecological impacts in a case like this - whether knowingly or carelessly - would certainly be "a matter of ethics".

Much like the ethical debates on the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone park. Its impact on other wildlife and the livelihood of the ranchers in the nearby states was predicted and became reality. The only ones that didn't get it were the liberals that had tunnel vision.

Originally posted by FMF
If one proposed to release enough extinct animals into the wild to make an impact, it'd most surely raise ethical questions. Such a decision could destroy habitats, disturb ecosystems, wipe out species, damage or even end livelihoods. Causing ecological impacts in a case like this - whether knowingly or carelessly - would certainly be "a matter of ethics".

Reintroduction of predators into a number of US States has been controversial and has raised ethical questions.

Most of the Southern States have huge problems with feral hogs, giants that aren't native to the continent, but are destructive to crops.

Hog hunting is thus popular, and recently as far north as Michigan, the feral hog is big news in politics, due to some farmers or ranchers raising them for controlled hunts. Ecology and ethics are linked inextricably, especially in the light of proposals to resurrect extinct species, some of which were intentionally rendered instinct.

Originally posted by FMF
If one proposed to release enough extinct animals into the wild to make an impact, it'd most surely raise ethical questions. Such a decision could destroy habitats, disturb ecosystems, wipe out species, damage or even end livelihoods. Causing ecological impacts in a case like this - whether knowingly or carelessly - would certainly be "a matter of ethics".

it is first a question of ecology. "impact" is not necessarily positive or negative. first we discuss the issue from an ecological point of view, and decide, through the power of ecology if it is negative. then we can discuss the ethics.


i offered this point because obviously, a change in any complex system will sooner or later affect enough variables, some of which would raise ethical question. those however will only come later, maybe the op would only wish to resurrect a couple mammoths and make youtube videous of them.