What do you mean, "how they should be"? Do you mean, will the individual develop exactly as it would have had it been born and grown in whatever habitat the species historically inhabited? Obviously that won't be the case. Or do you mean that by some fluke of the cloning process the animal will be physically altered in some significant way? Because if it is, indeed a clone, I don't see how that would happen. Yeah, but Jurassic Park doesn't really win any prizes for scientific accuracy. On the contrary, that is precisely why we should! That is how innovation occurs! So long as an action is ethically sound, then we've nothing to gain by not trying. We must do science for no other reason than we can. That is where the humanity of the whole endeavor lies.
I think that once you have sufficent numbers of them you could release thylacines, dodos and great auks into the wild (maybe semi-wild for the dodos i.e. some of the small islands off the coast of Mauritius).
And make them supress those animals that are living there right now. And what if you clone extinct animals, release it into the wild and then the population grows so large that you have to start hunting them again? That's pretty weird, given that you basically played God, (re)created them, and when they become a problem, you have to kill them again. Seriously, bringing back extinct animals is trying to undo a mistake by committing another one.
At the moment the Bennetts wallaby population in Tasmania has to be culled because they no longer have a natural predator. Because their main prey was the Bennetts wallaby the thylacine wasn't in too much competition with Tasmanian devils or with quolls which are both too small to take Bennetts wallaby even if the thylacine sometimes took smaller prey. Another benefit to the Tasmanian devil could be that the thylacine's presence might naturally breakup the concentration of devils so that fewer devils would turn up to fight around a carcass which would actually halt the spread of the disease that is endangering the devil. Though thylacines were once accused of being sheep-killers recent studies have shown that the thylacine jaw was too weak to kill a sheep. There would no reason for them to be huted if the species could be revived.
I believe that the Great Auk, Dodo, Moa, Quagga, Mammoth and other extinct herbivores and omnivores creature should be reintroduced but in manageable numbers. Even if the population gets too large and we need to control the population by killing them, we could keep the killing to a reasonable level and thus maintain a survivable population. Humans nowadays have a far more awareness of preserving endangered creatures compared to the situation less than 200 years ago. We could sell the meat of the dead creatures if there is a demand for it. We might even have farms of these creature if their meat is popular. I am not a fan of exotic meat (i like chicken and pork but not red meat) but it seems from the posts on this thread, many people would like the taste of exotic meat. We made a lot of animals species extinct. Bringing them back will be our redemption.
Redemption because you bring back animals to look at them, control their population to your own liking, keep them in farms, and sell their meat? What kind of redemption is that? I also like the wording. Manageable numbers. You mean you create a creature and if the population becomes uncomfortable for humans, we start shooting them. That's already wrong with the currently living species, and it would be even more wrong with artificially brought back species. Of course, the killing would only be on a reasonable level. What the hell is a reasonable level of killing? And you think any of this would be a redemption?
I am talking about bringing back entire species that humans killed off in the last 10 000 years. If individual members are killed in order to preserve the population, i am okay with it as long as the species survives. Our human ancestors and that includes the cavemen and aboriginals in their ignorance and the need to survive in a hostile world, ended the existence of many of these species. We with our science should bring them back. We own it to ourselves to do it.
As stated before. Extinction of species is a natural process. It's absolutely normal that one species suppresses another one in a hostile environment. Some survive, some don't. Mammoths couldn't survive against a TINY fraction of humans (cavemen) hunting them. It's not comparable to modern anthropogenic extinction of species causes by clearing of thousans of square kilometers of rain forests per day for example (THAT is a thing where I would say preservation is a really important thing. But actually the better thing would be to stop the clearing). Especially the Mammoth is still a natural case of one species suppressing another. And then again, we don't even know for sure if human is actually responsible. They died out after the last ice age. Climate changes do that to species. Are we supposed to bring back the Neanderthal because homo sapiens suppressed him and we somehow OWE it to ourselves to undo that? The idea of cloning extinct species is the idea of purposely creating something just to store it in zoos to look at it, or keep it in farms and control it and then eat it. Just to feel better about yourself. It's a bad idea in its very root. While we're at it trying to control nature even more than we do now. All those animals around are so incredibly cute and it's so sad that some get killed by predators. Why don't we catch all the predators and give them replacement food rations? That way all those evil lions never have to hunt those cute gazelles anymore. No deaths anymore! And still both are happy! Don't we owe it to our kids to create a happy Lion King version of nature were all animals get along?
Extinction is a natural process. De extincting is something unnatural but so is building skyscrapers, jumbo jets and submarines. We use human ingenuity to solve problems that we encounter. How about using that same human ingenuity to bring back the species that we caused the extinction off while we were still primitive. You talk about small bands of human killing off the mammoths. A B-2 bomber can drop half a dozen nukes on certain areas of the Amazon Forest and certainly dozens of species will be wiped out. discovered and undiscovered. A B-2 Bomber crew and small bands of primitive hunters can achieve the same result. The only difference is the amount of time it takes for the hunters to carry out their task and the level of technology. We could kill off any number of species of animals on earth if we choose too but we don't want to. Our Morality does not allow for that. But if we could bring back the species that we humans killed off in our primitive days, Our Morality can only be further improved. Mammoths have every right to be on earth just like those species in the Amazon. I am not talking about Neanderthal when i talk about De extinction of animals. That is a whole different issue. Neanderthals are humans like us but a different subspecies. I support De extinction of extinct species not because i want to feel good. I believe that it is the right thing to do. It is very easy to kill and to take life. It is not possible to give life back to the dead. If we could bring back extinct creatures, species that we killed off, our human science and our human morality will have another link to each other. We have used science and technology to kill. We should use science to bring back extinct species, especially those species, our ancestors killed using primitive technologies like spears, axes and arrows.
That is an incredibly inept analogy and you know it. Mammoths went extinct around the time of the last glacial retreat, which was the cause of a mass extinction (known as the quarternary extinction event). It is still unclear if humans contributed to the extinction, but IF they did, it was a case of a tiny group of predators overwhelming a species that already had a really hard time adapting to the climate change. Thousands of species went extinct because of that natural imbalance, because there were some species that adapted well, and some species that didn't adapt. Because that's what happens in nature. It is IN NO WAY comparable to what you wrote. How does the Neanderthal not deserve to be "de-extincted" then? Does he not "have every right to be on Earth" just like the Mammoth or species in the Amazon? Were is the double standard suddenly coming from?
There are no such things as gods. Cancer is a natural process, yet we do our best to treat it and cure it. Freezing is a natural process, yet we build heated dwellings. Darwinism is a natural process, yet we create societies to protect the weak and aged, and to cultivate the arts and sciences. Extinction is a natural process, yet Humanity already devotes a lot of energy to protect existing species from that natural process. Not to mention the fact that a lot of species exist solely because Humans bred them. Whether you like it or not, we exist, and we have an effect upon the world commensurate to our intrinsic qualities, just like every other creature that ever existed. It is our nature to defy nature. Sometimes it turns out badly and sometimes it turns out great, but when you consider that we aren't that long down from the trees in the grand scheme of things, and that we've had to learn the hard way, we've done very well. Yes, if it becomes possible to clone extinct species, it should be done. Perhaps to repair a gap in the ecology, perhaps for pure science, perhaps to fill a market for exotic meat, or perhaps simply because it is an awesome achievement, like walking on the Moon or discovering the Higgs Boson. But it should be done. And I have no doubt that it will be.
Speaking purely from the heart I think humans are probably that bastard at the party who ruins it for everyone else. I don't think we have the right to kill of other species or turn everything into what we want. I feel ashamed of the way we live. That being said. I love the way we live. Speaking practically. I don't think this is something we should mess around with. They couldn't live as they should. Human arrogance and curiosity is what this is about, it's got nothing to do with the well being of the animals of the planet. It's like inviting 10 people to stay over for a week when you've only got one bed, no food and they have to follow all your weird rules.
Only if you are an utter cynic. The purpose is the joy of discovery and the hope of benefiting humanity, these animals, and other species by improving our scientific knowledge. Your notions of what is "natural" are completely arbitrary, and there's really no reason but fear and nostalgia to adhere to them.
First of all, nobody is trying to make existing wildlife extinct; there are, however, many people trying to preserve existing wildlife. Second of all, if we had the technology to clone extinct animals, that would mean we would have the technology to clone existing animals, and would therefore be able to save them from extinction.
Well, that is something nature has never done. If you really think about it, the whole concept of biodiversity is a human conceit. Nature doesn't grieve any loss, and is responsible for most extinctions in history. One of the largest losses occurred when North and South America were linked. There were marsupial mammal equivalents of about everything we had up here--but the placentals, being used to colder climes, overwhelmed them. The only thing we got out of it was the 'possum I've got no problem with livestock and typical animal husbandry. Nature never tried to cap the LaBrea tar pits, and the dinos were wiped out precisely because they had no space program--no control. The one thing that sets us apart from other speceis isn't language or tools--other animals have that. But rather than being manipulated by our surroundings, we manipulate them. So the very thing that damns us in the eyes of some Greens is actually what defines us as an emerging industrial species of homo technicus. That's just another form of nature too. Also, technodiversity, sadly must always come before biodiversity (to escape before the Red Giant phase dooms us all). You see, a triceratops (torosaurus now? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html ) and a rhino are essentially the same animal. As long as the spark of life remains, that niche will get filled. But when that last weather sat goes down--it cannot re-evolve, as it really is a case (the satellite that is) of intel design. Now I'm not saying that consumerism can't be regulated in some wise--but the idea that everything natural is good, but everything artificial is bad has to be questioned. Clear cutting doesn't look nice, but it allows libraries. And according to an old copy of Storm Track, the Henderson mountain tornado of 1994 mowed down perhaps 1,000 trees per second, as per Tim Marshall. We are as gnats before a colossus. BTW Nature itself would fail EPA standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcano http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-oil