@insomnia soul,
insomnia_soul;137771 wrote:First of all it would be interesting to hear what you other people say about my thoughts and this discussion me and HexHammer have had.
I'm not an expert, and would gladly hear constructive criticism on my way of thinking, if it comes from a nice person who does it with the right motives.
Even though I don't think the philosophical thoughts I've had in this discussion can be called wrong, since it's just my personal view.
lol, is that what you do when you feel you can't win; using a few sarcastic comments to make the person feel bad, before you quit the discussion by putting them on ignore?
So far to me you're nothing more than a "forum wise ass", that is not here to discuss philosophy. You seem to be here to tell people they're wrong, pushing them down, and putting them in their place to feel better about yourself.
If you would have been right and the bigger man here; you would have accepted my philosophical view, explained yours, and told me why you disagree with me.
Instead you said I was wrong, called me unintelligent, tried to push me down several times, and then put me on ignore.
You don't ever have to remove that ignore if it's my choice, I don't want to discuss philosophy with ppl like you anyway.
Insomnia_soul, what you have posted has been clear and made perfect sense from the start. I applaud your patience and forbearance in the face of hexhammer's rudeness.
insomnia_soul;137367 wrote:
I want to say; why should we, and what value do we expect from these animals?
Of course it would be amazing to see an extinct animal in the zoo for many reasons.
But just because we put an extinct animal back in nature or in a cage doesn't mean that animal is back to life here on earth in my book. It's just an illusion, a biological hologram of the past.
I agree with your assessment. There is a dynamic balance of organisms in any ecosystem. Bringing creatures from one ecosystem to another will disrupt that balance. It is evident from several stories in the news in the last several years that introducing species from one continent to another can cause powerful disruption of an ecosystem. To clone a creature because some kids want to see "Wooly Mammoth vs. Sabertooth" in real life would be extremely foolish and immature.
Quote:The extinction of those animals are a natural consequence of actions in the universe. And it's not an easy fix to bring them back, what's done is done.
Indeed! Evolutionary theory is based on observation that an animal becomes extinct when its environment changes so that it is not sufficiently fit to continue reproducing. In the case of the dinosaurs, it is believed that a huge meteor struck the earth near the Yucatan Peninsula, causing the sky to block out most sunlight from reaching the earth. The atmosphere and oceans cooled, many plants died, and so most of the ecosystems of the earth underwent huge transformations.
Quote:What we really get out of a clone like that are to me very frightening; Many of us would put value in an illusion that is not fixing the history, but are destroying and confusing our present and future (If we see the natural evolution as a successful future. If not; we can do whatever we want, but we also have to accept the consequences, and the end of our world as we know it).
But I would not be surprised if in the future, extinct animals would be cloned and put in the zoo. And people watching them just like we're watching pictures of dinosaurs in a book today.
And I don't think that would be ethically wrong, since I don't think we have brought back those animals to reality. To exist you have to have a real past, coming out of natural causes, otherwise you're nothing more than a picture in a book.
I would guess that the results of "bringing back" a long-extinct creature and releasing it into a modern ecosystem would likely be death for the outsider: The foods that it is genetically adapted to eating may not be available in sufficient quantity, the climate may be entirely different, and even the balance of gasses in the atmosphere might be intolerable to its system. On the other hand, if a predator such as a sabertooth tiger was cloned and set into the wild, if it survived, it might do so by killing quite a lot of cows, pigs, sheep, humans, etc. It certainly would disrupt the current ecology and have unpredictable consequences for humanity and for all life on earth.
I also agree with your suggestion that such cloning might be worthwhile for a zoo of some kind. Instead of having to puzzle out from various clues what the outward appearance, habits etc. of the creatures
might have been, we would have living creatures to observe. Of course, animals in a zoo do not behave much like they do in a more natural setting, but something like what was portrayed in the movie "Jurassic Park", where a whole habitat is created would be very illuminating.
In the final analysis, though, it seems to me that the resources of biological science have more pressing needs at this time. I agree with Aedes in post #4 where he says, "our ethical obligation comes down to responsible uses of our technology and responsible goals, as opposed to principled use or abandonment of a technology just because it feels viscerally like we're playing god." I believe strongly that "with great power comes great responsibility", and our technology and creativity give us great power. The question is, however, how will that power be used? And, since this thread is in the Ethics branch, it is appropriate that we consider what ethical principals might be involved.
Like you, insomnia_soul, I participate here to improve my mind and share ideas, which is what we did when I studied philosophy in college, and what real philosophers do.
