Here's an interesting thought:

We have successfully cloned sheep. Do you think the concept of "cloning" endangered species to reintroduce them into the wild in order to preserve the species would be a noble cause, or would it be mankind interfering with the natural flow of the world and the way species rise and fall?

Many would say that the disappearance of many species can be attributed to the incursions of mankind, however... mankind is also a part of nature. Is the end of these species' time in the world their "due time", or are we catalysts for the destruction of species that were not meant to be gone? Should we use the cloning process to amend this, or would that be a violation of natural course?


Gandalf

That's not entirely correct: Read here about telomers and premature aging.

Cloning in general of animals and plants that are not endangered is dangerous because it reduces biodiversity. Cloning animals that are endangered it's not a problem for those animals if it's done right (since they were disappearing anyway) as for impact on the environment... as long as you don't clone herds of tigers I think the environment can take it.

OK... well.. take it in the context that we could successfully clone an animal, without the negative side effects.

I am talking about cloning endangered species of plants and animals to help re-establish them in the environment, and whether that would be mankind transgressing on "Natural Order".. or if we are, in a sense, in violation of "Natural Order" by incursing onto other species habitats and driving them from existence.


Gandalf

Define "Natural Order" and if it's something desirable or not, then I will respond to your question.

"Natural Order". The premise that species rise, fall, are created, and then go extinct. Like the dinosaurs that lived and had their reign, and then vanished from the Earth.

Are the species endangered by human transgressions on their territory, driving them from their habitats, and causing them to die off a victim of natural process.. or, as in "The Matrix", are human beings a plague that is wiping them out before their time?

If we had the capacity to reintegrate endangered species and to make their numbers grow.. should we, or would we be interfering with the natural course of life?


Gandalf

I think that in general people look at their actions as outside of "nature" they look at things as natural or things created/influenced by humans, that's a little bit contrived because people are part of nature... anyway I think that putting things in "natural" or "not-natural" categories might be misleading and irrelevant and a lost of time for this discussion so I'd like to eliminate this from the beginning. So, I'm not willing to discuss about things being natural or not being natural (unless you define that more clearly).

As for us "interfering with the natural course of life" it depends on what exactly you mean by that, but to me it seems that's what we do as humans (by definition: see my first sentence), what would you mean for you to not interfere with "natural course"? Hunting in packs and not using tools? Using "natural" (meaning unprocessed) materials for constructions and clothes or maybe going naked and sleeping in trees since that's the only "natural" thing? Not taking Tylenol or aspirin when we have fever? Those are rhetorical questions, I don't want to get into natural vs. non-natural discussion.

The only question here is if this is good or bad, and for whom? There are two parts in this equation, us and animals. BTW, we are the only judges, if there was a God it would makes sense to try to follow His opinions, but since I don't believe in God I find that irrelevant.

So, is it good for us if we reintegrate endangered species and make their numbers grow? Maybe, as long as we don't have a "Jurassic Park" scenario. To me it seems like an useless effort because:
1. species disappear for a reason, for example: lost of habitat, it doesn't make sense to repopulate tigers in cities for example, or it doesn't make sense trying to repopulate Sahara with animals that need lots of water, as it doesn't make sense to repopulate polar bears if the world would be too hot for them.
2. cloned animals have no genetic diversity and would be very vulnerable to diseases and changes in environment.
3. reintroduced animals might predate on other animals or even people (tigers for example) reintroducing animals in different habitats usually damage the dynamic equilibrium of life and seems to produce more problems than it solves.

As for animals' well being? If you consider that existence is better than non-existence then it's good for the ones that are cloned -- it might not be good for other animals (if you clone lions is probably not a very happy thing for antelopes, it also might not be good for the "natural" lions if they get competition, on the other hand they would be happy to have sex with a cloned lion if they don't find a natural one )

It also depends what is your objective and your beliefs, if you believe that God(s) or The Law care about animals then you have to behave according to those beliefs, I don't so I tend to ignore that issue.

Did I touch everything that was important? Are you happy with my response?

Well, to take "The Matrix" view of things, Agent Smith said:

"I want to share a revelation with you that I've had during my time here.. it came when I was trying to classify your species. I realized that humans are not acutally mammals.

Every mammal naturally develops a sort of.. equilibrium.. with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and then you multiply, and multiply, and multiply.. until every natural resource is consumed, and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

There is an organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... do you know what it is? A virus."


As people continue to develop and build, species are being wiped out from the planet. Rain forests are being cut down to provide lumber... entire forests are being wiped out to make a golf course. Not all of the destruction that we cause to the various other species of the planet are simply for the sake of our survival. We hunted leopards and tigers and minks just to make exotic clothing for the filthy rich. Rhinos were hunted to near extinction for their ivory.

I read an article the other day that said that there are now only 5,000 tigers that exist in the wild.

Without delving into the concept of what is "natural" and "unnatural", we can safely say that a predator in the wild only takes that which he needs. There is no such thing as "luxury" to a tiger, or to a lion. We are different. We'll hunt something until it is completely gone just to get one thing from it because it is worth money, rather than the fact that it is specifically needed to aid in our continued survival.

Honestly, I don't believe that cloning can answer the problem, because the environments that these creatures inhabit are being destroyed, and there is no place to put them except a place outside of their natural habitat, which would be counterproductive. We'd have to curtail our need and desire for materialistic things and stop taking what we don't specifically need, so that the natural habitat can regain its balance.

I am just looking for opinions as to whether people think that we can save those species that are being pushed into extinction by using a cloning process, provided we have the means to perfect it.


Gandalf

Basically you have to protect what you have because it's hard or impossible to recreate once a thing has disappeared, but I thought that's common sense.

For interest, a news article to add: World's first cloned cat has kittens