Extinct Ibex Resurrected by Cloning… then Goes Extinct Again

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/02/01/extinct-i...ning-then-dies/

I'm sure there are not many reasons to bring extinct species back to life. They clearly died out for a reason. When evolution is so fluid, why do we insist on trying to keep things as they are. There are probably thousands of species going extinct every day, and thousands of new ones too. At what point do we stop the conservation?

On the other side of the coin there is some good work and genuine discoveries happening, but its still quite a grey area to me as to why budgets are allocated for it.

What if the bengal tiger dissapeard due to human overpopulation and overhunting? Wouldn't you like to bring it back when we finally get our shit together?

Ah, so it comes down to how beautiful we see the species as. Would you feel the same about the lesser spotted stinky beetle?

I think a frozen arc of DNA sounds cool, but it will probably only be used to bring back individuals to be paraded around. Imagine how popular a zoo full of extinct animals would be...

As for getting our shit together, I'm all for that, but once the habitat and environment have gone or changed too much, the species should die out or evolve. I thought we shouldn't play God?

The reason for most extinctions is human activity accompanied by negligence and callousness. After we transform culture to be more caring about nature, it would be a shame to be in a place where countless species have gone extinct unnecessarily. So while we're waiting for the rest of the world to become more caring and diligent, we ought to help the unnecessary extinction of all species, even the uncute.

The reason for most extinctions was a comet and is quite likely to be again.

If all animals and plants on the planet were to disappear, most species would still remain.

Yeah, but you're a uni-cellular chauvinist! The life of a bacterium is uninteresting from the bacterium's point of view. They're generally believed to be unconscious.

I respect, admire and appreciate every form of life that exists. No matter how insignificant it seems. The zoo is a bad example for me. As a caged tiger is not a tiger any more. As for playing "God", is a game we'll be facing as we progress as a civilization, and begin interplanetary colonization; should we make it pass our present evolutionary bottleneck.

I'd say that is as Natural a Cause as any other; I get that others see it as us artificially altering the course of nature, but really, thats our society being arrogant and putting humans outside the natural world.
This is all about hope. What if this future can't exist? What if the Universe is only about opposition and reaction, and all that really has to exist is the fight? Many people have said before me that its the journey and not the destination thats important. I think we have to toil on with whatever altruistic tendencies we have fighting against any fears we have, but really its the fight thats important, not the outcome. I think the outcome of conservation is probably unrealistic because we're not moving fast enough to change our culture or the damage we're causing to habitats the world over.

Many things which are important to the overall health of the ecosystem are probably flying well under the radar.

The future according to T_L


As, according to you, no animal specie that can save itself should be worth saving. Thanks, but no, thanks!

Sometimes, hope is all we got. "What if...?" What if I change the future with my present thoughts and actions?
Otherwise, why even bother to live, or to post here at BM?

I don't think I ever said anything like "no animal species that can save itself should be worth saving."

I was simply stating that conservation is probably futile without the food chain and habitat to support it. If you believe that we can save ourselves by saving doomed animals (Pandas come to mind), then thats a noble path. Only the journey matters. I wonder if more conservation grants are given for PR animals, like the panda and siberian tiger, instead of perhaps ugly insects or a native species of rat like mammals.

The problem I have is the assumption that by saving others we ourselves will be saved. Are we hoping an altruistic space faring civilisation might come save us to conserve the galaxies eco-system?

If you agree that we can't save every animal, then doesn't the whole concept of conservation fail? How do you choose? How can you know what habitats will be available in the future after you've decided to keep an ibex over a rare eagle because funding is limited?

On a funnier note:
Apart from the Tabloid headline "Last Ibex standing gets hit by falling tree" being quite funny to my humour, it helps evolve better reflexes for every subsequent animal! Every cloud...

We may be "within nature," but you have to admit that we are an unprecedented phenomenon in nature, and that with our ability to know it, we had better take care. The shape of the future is entirely in our hands.

Focusing on single species misses the point and will lead to unanticipated and unintended effects. We need to preserve habitats in order to maintain the natural diversity needed for us to be good stewards of the environment.

What the hell are you talking about!!! When did I say that!!!!

Gene banks till we can bring them back

I'd agree that from our point of view we are an unprecedented phenomenon. On this planet we are sentient and intelligent enough to make sacrifices and altruistic choices that go against our animal instincts but are protective of the pack - at least we believe those decisions to be.

Habitat protection is definately more important than a singular species, but I think the links between habitat and its propagation, and the little animal fellas doing the symbiosis thing are almost impossible to define.

Everything seems to be in symbiosis with something, and I doubt we can ever truly understand it.

We shouldn't mess with what we don't understand. Nature preserves are essential to our long-term well being.