Do you think cloning can help save various species?

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

But, sadly, you are waaay too practical and realistic for the general population to get.

Enjoy your public thrashing, but at least know that there are some of us who applaud your attempts.

theskull

I "get" it. and there has been no public thrashing. just a discussion.

 

[archman]

As another aside, biologists don't use the term "advanced" the same way that everyone else does. We (now) use it synonymously with "derived", and generally use the latter's definition for both. When we say "advanced", we're not implying any aspect of superiority, but rather a non-basal or non-primitive phylogeny. Which is why we don't dispute that metazoans are more advanced than parazoans, which are more advanced than their ancestral protozoan lines, which are more advanced than prokaryotes, etc...

To make it even more fun, we'll use "primitive/advanced" nomenclature in lower-order taxonomy, even at strain-scales.

But because most non-biologists interpret our current lingo quite differently, we've been trying to weed out our usage of "primitive" and "advanced" over the last 10-20 years. I *think* we phased out the advanced=better viewpoint by the late 1970's.

 

[drbill]

My point is a philosophical one, not a practical one: when we are being pro-environment, we are being selfish: we are promoting the environment we like, species we like, air and water we like, not an environment that is somehow the "ideal" environment for all lving things. We can't ruin the earth, only ruin the earth we find appealing.

I don't see it as protecting the "environment we like," I see it as protecting the environment that IS... or at least would be without OUR "intrusion" into and damage to it. That's quite a difference in outlook. I'm not trying to protect what I like, I'm trying to protect functioning ecosystems (ones in which extinctions will occur, but at a natural rather than highly accelerated rate).

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

As another aside, biologists don't use the term "advanced" the same way that everyone else does. We (now) use it synonymously with "derived", and generally use the latter's definition for both. When we say "advanced", we're not implying any aspect of superiority, but rather a non-basal or non-primitive phylogeny. Which is why we don't dispute that metazoans are more advanced than parazoans, which are more advanced than their ancestral protozoan lines, which are more advanced than prokaryotes, etc...

To make it even more fun, we'll use "primitive/advanced" nomenclature in lower-order taxonomy, even at strain-scales.

But because most non-biologists interpret our current lingo quite differently, we've been trying to weed out our usage of "primitive" and "advanced" over the last 10-20 years. I *think* we phased out the advanced=better viewpoint by the late 1970's.

I agree to a point... the 2006 amoeba is every bit as advanced in its lineage as the 2006 human or 2006 oak tree. Each has perfected its own approach to life, albeit very different approaches to life they may be.

However, there is still the belief that humans have more cognitive power relative to other species, hence represent some zenith in evolution. In fact, we base our ethical framework around intellectual prowess. People get paid to exterminate termites and go to jail for killing cats --- the only intrinsic difference, as we see it, between insects and cats is there cognitive abilities. Although biologists don't distinguish between advanced and primitive life in terms of inferior/superior, the law and religion sure do. Moral worth is proportional to intelligence, where intelligence is defined neurologically.

The intelligence of the cell resides in non-linear metabolic networks and swtiches and is beyond our direct comprehension, as well as beyond measurement. A free-living amoeba must make decisions all the time, when to move, when to divide, when to rest, based on a myriad of ambient sensory signals (heat, pH, light, ionic strengths and so on) as well as a myriad of internal parameters. My rhetorical question is: can we be sure the human brain is the zenith of bio-intelligence, if we have no way of measuring the metabolic and stereochemical computing ability of a single cell? Personally, I consider life as the chemical manifestation of intelligence, while what we call "intelligence" is the cellular maifestation of the same entity. I also believe that a cell is smarter than a human brain in its own milleu, but I can't prove it.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I don't see it as protecting the "environment we like," I see it as protecting the environment that IS... or at least would be without OUR "intrusion" into and damage to it. That's quite a difference in outlook. I'm not trying to protect what I like, I'm trying to protect functioning ecosystems (ones in which extinctions will occur, but at a natural rather than highly accelerated rate).

Are we really intruders? Aren't we part of the ecosystem that spawned us? Why is what the beaver does to a stream "natural" but what we do "damage"?

We have a skewed view of what constitutes a good or natural environment. Example; we consider wildfires bad, they destroy huge amounts of forest. But wait! Look at a pine cone. The thing is built to explode in fire like a grenade. The forest needs fire for its health. Some things that look "bad" , ugly or destructive are sometimes necessary for continued growth and health of the ecosystem. For all we know, the "damage" we are doing is exactly what the ecosystem needs and desires. Our role may be to drive hundreds of weaker species out of existence, or to heat the planet with our emissions because that's what will set the stage for another shift in climate.

The world on its present course could be doomed, only a warmer, less biodiverse ecosystem may be survivable. The point is we just don't know. We are NOT smart enough to know what the global ecosystem wants or needs or how it will react to us. So we should do what every other creature does: fend for itself and let the ecosystem sort it out. The last time i checked, it had, oh, five billion more years experience at the job.

 

[pterantula]

We protect wildlife and fish for our use and amusement, not because they have some inate right to exist. A species that suits us, we keep, ones that don't, we discard

Not always: what about the efforts to protect the habitats and populations of cougars, venemous snakes, the New Zealand Katipo spider, etc? Protecting these animals presents a real danger to human life & habitat, and slowing development into these habitats means severe economic consequences for humans as a result. Are taipans and scorpions really all that cuddly?

We can't ruin the earth, only ruin the earth we find appealing.

Yes and no - you have to be more specific; "appealing" also means "philosophically appealing", i.e., if we KNOW we're killing indiscriminately, and that this indiscriminate killing inevitably leads to MASSIVE species deaths across the board, then yes - that does in fact "ruin the Earth"... I can think of no other animal with the power to DECIDE to simply kill everything in sight, on such a massive scale. This goes beyond humans and that which with we're comfortable.

(By the way --- tell the millions of people who die miserably each year from mosquito born diseases that they should be consoled by the increased number of bald eagles. Question: if it came down to having the bald eagle go extinct and using DDT to save a million African children from malaria, what choice would do we make? The issue isn't always one of "evil" toxin spewers and "good" environmentalists.)

No, I say **** the humans; no other animal indiscriminately kills anything it can - especially as a collateral consequence, as we humans seem to love to do - without making use of the kill in some way. We kill just to kill. Let nature take some back. (Humans breed far too much, too often. I mean it. Ours is not a competition with the environment for survival anymore, and further viral infestations of humans brings the quality of ALL life, everywhere, down.)

 

[CIMI Diver]

No, I say **** the humans; no other animal indiscriminately kills anything it can - especially as a collateral consequence, as we humans seem to love to do - without making use of the kill in some way. We kill just to kill. Let nature take some back. (Humans breed far too much, too often. I mean it. Ours is not a competition with the environment for survival anymore, and further viral infestations of humans brings the quality of ALL life, everywhere, down.)[/QUOTE]


I wonder if you attitude would be the same if it were you son/daughter, brother/sister or mother/father was one of the people killed?

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Not always: what about the efforts to protect the habitats and populations of cougars, venemous snakes, the New Zealand Katipo spider, etc? Protecting these animals presents a real danger to human life & habitat, and slowing development into these habitats means severe economic consequences for humans as a result. Are taipans and scorpions really all that cuddly?



Yes and no - you have to be more specific; "appealing" also means "philosophically appealing", i.e., if we KNOW we're killing indiscriminately, and that this indiscriminate killing inevitably leads to MASSIVE species deaths across the board, then yes - that does in fact "ruin the Earth"... I can think of no other animal with the power to DECIDE to simply kill everything in sight, on such a massive scale. This goes beyond humans and that which with we're comfortable.



No, I say **** the humans; no other animal indiscriminately kills anything it can - especially as a collateral consequence, as we humans seem to love to do - without making use of the kill in some way. We kill just to kill. Let nature take some back. (Humans breed far too much, too often. I mean it. Ours is not a competition with the environment for survival anymore, and further viral infestations of humans brings the quality of ALL life, everywhere, down.)

Yikes!

As far as breeding, humans produce one to two offspring at a time, with a generational time of 20 years. Compare that to the fly, which may produce millions of offspring with a dozen generations per year. In terms of raw numbers and weight, humans, in fact vertebrates in general, are a rather insignificant part of the ecosystem. No animal "breeds too much".

As far as indiscriminant killing, the bubonic plague took out over half of the population in Europe and Asia, and HIV and malaria kill millions of humans each year. HIV doesn't have to kill us to survive, it just does. Chimpanzees kill and eat their young, while pack animals often fight to the point of lethality just to establish a mating order. A black widow and a praying mantis female eat the male after copulation. Is this all 'necessary"? Perhaps. Nature gets a pass, because nothing in Nature is evil --- evil seems to be the domain of humans alone for some reason. Nothing we do, right or wrong, can be natural I suppose.

I'm amazed when people decry humanity, yet judge everything in human terms. Concepts such as "caring" or 'ruining" are human concepts. As are "beauty", "natural", "appealing". Suppose, for example, we did wipe out everything on earth, including ourselves. So what? The only entities that "care" about anything are humans. If there are no humans around to mourn the loss of the earth, would it matter?

Of course, you could go Buddhist on me and say the world has some sort of consciousness that does not want to cease to exist, independent of human cognition. In which case, the ecosystem has been responsible for some atrocities of its own, irrespective of us. If we endow the ecosystem with a conscious, caring property, then perhaps it should share in the evil as well. If the ecosystem has no consciousness, wrecking it has no consequences for anything except us. And since you say nuts to us, then you must say nuts to the natural world as well.

As for saving all the non-cuddly creatures, I again reiterate: should we save HIV, or smallpox, or rabies? Should every insect species (and there are hundreds of thousands) be inventoried and protected? How about every plant, every fungus, every bacterial species? How much of human wealth and effort should be invested in this foolhardy Noah's Ark project?

Or could it be that, if we look deeper into many of these efforts to save the bumfoozle ant or the georgejetson beetle, we might, just might, find some political or economic squabble over the supposed habitat, a squabble that has nothing to do with enviromentalism.

 

[The Kraken]

Ya know, all of this dialogue is generated from the point of one observer . . . the homo sapien.

The cockroach was here long before us and will probably be here long after we are gone.

As the philosopher so aptly said, "Physician, heal thyself."

But, to answer the question put forth, what is the reason for doing such when mankind, as we know it, will probably destroy itself? If a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound if there is no one around to hear it?

Besides, who would be the ultimate authority to determine that which is worth saving? The possibilities for corruption of the practice are boundless. The possibilites scare me.

A rather strange analogy would be, what if we could take a DNA sample of all or our ancestors and regenerate them.

Interesting proposition, no ???

the K-ockroach

 

[Blue Tide]

Let's make house cats extinct. God I hate those sons of *****es.

Nah, really I like other peoples cats I just won't have one in my house.

OTO, this is really an interesting thread. For the record I don't agree with cloning for the purpose of repopulating a species. However, I do agree with trying to clone organs for transplants.