How are you all doing? Having a nice week? So, let me welcome you to the 33th Weekly Question!
![Weekly Question <a href='/c/science/tag/33/'>#33</a>-[C]How are you all doing? Having a nice week? So, let me welcome you to the 33th Weekly Question!
[IMG=4](https://image.staticox.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpa1.aminoapps.vertvonline.info%2F7081%2F2469be635ff390c422908d5123efec9fdcf496f6r1-512-512_hq.gif)
So, without any further ado, let us proceed to the subject of this Weekly Question!
De-extinction
So, de-extinction or ressurection biology, as the name implies is the process is the artificial creation of an extinct species or endangered ones mainly through cloning. Although the efforts and intentions may be good, people who oppose the idea claim that the conservation of living species be a far better in the long term. So, in which side are you on?
A couple of points that you can discuss are:
➝ Should de-extinction be pursued or not?
➝ Is it better to revive or conserve?
➝ What should be the limit of de-extinction?
➝ What consequences might it carry?
➝ What species shouldn't be revived and why?
Let us know your opinion about it by writting it down from a scientific and/or moral perspective.
As always, you can write your opinion in a separate post or right here in the comment section.
The questions that were presented here are only to guide you and do not need to be followed nor answered.
Previous Weekly Question:
Disclaimer: We do not in anyway own the pictures used in this blog. We simply got them from the internet and edited them.
Comments (11)
➝ Nah.
➝ Conserve. Not only because it would take less effort to conserve still-living species, the mindset of “Don’t worry, we can bring it back.” isn’t that good.
➝ Extinct period or cause, the specie’s traits, beneficialness, those of the like.
➝ Imbalance the current ecosystem, we’ve never seen them alive, we don’t know their possible behaviours. It could also be a waste of resources if the specie ends up dead again.
➝Creatures that would negatively impact the ecosystem now greatly, ones that would take entirely artificial conditions to barely survive, and ones that are completely useless.
In a way, these species were naturally selected to die, seeing their traits did not help them survive. A different case could probably be made for human-caused ones, though.
No
We need Bees, we made Bees, KILLER BEES. Measure twice, cut once.
I think we should do it if the animal is indangers cus of us and or is need to keep the ecosystem from collapsing as it might be more harm then hood to bring back "extinct" animals and since there hybrids they kay be able to bread with the original species and thrive
The majority of extinct species would most likely die very fast in today's conditions, but I see no problem in reviving them if there is a purpose to it. Researching them, researching thwir interactions with the environment, introducing them back to the wild. Of course, worrying about what would happen to ecosystem is pretty much the same as with introducing any species to a new habitat, there is always a risk of it being too invasive, so they should be monitored correctly, obviously.
I think investing in conserving today's biodiversity is more important, but these two options don't have to exclude each other and should both be pursued.