Is it wrong to revive extinct animals?

[Roel]

Unfortunately, not enough usable DNA of non-avian dinosaurs is left to revive them by the only modern surviving dinosaurs, birds. DNA can only be used if it's less than a million years old. It is however theoretically possible to revive a mammoth by using a mother elephant and putting enough surviving DNA from a mammoth in an egg cell. The question is, should we do this? It would definitely be exciting, but it might be perceived as 'intervening in Gods' creation' too.

I personally think that it would be exciting and a way to pay back for what we did, humans were responsible for many extinctions.

Though would it be ethically possible to bring back a Neanderthaler? A human is necessary for it.

What do you think?

[Sy Borg]

I expect that this will happen, whether we think it's ethical or not.

First consideration is safety. Will the "revived" species pose a threat to humans or the environmental balance?

Next consideration is ethics. What kind of life can we offer the animal? Creating a new Neanderthal would seem akin to creating a Elephant Man style curiosity. Or John Savage in Brave New World. Other sentient species will also need companions, plus suitable enclosures and privacy opportunities.

No doubt some extinct species will be brought back by unethical institutions which will mistreat the subjects. Others will be cared for properly and given adequate freedoms.

Another, more abstract, consideration is whether the planet needs for animals as much as it needs more plants.

[Alias]

Keeping anyone in a cage is wrong. Categorically wrong.
For many species, extinction is the only escape from the unremitting stress, hardship and frequent suffering imposed on them by humans.
To bring them back while we're still in charge is horribly cruel - so horribly cruel, in fact, that only humans could even think of doing it.
And probably will.

[Roel]

Keeping anyone in a cage is wrong. Categorically wrong.
For many species, extinction is the only escape from the unremitting stress, hardship and frequent suffering imposed on them by humans.
To bring them back while we're still in charge is horribly cruel - so horribly cruel, in fact, that only humans could even think of doing it.
And probably will.

Who says that they'll be put away in cages? There is something like wild life parks. Animals in wild life parks with enough space don't seem unhappy.

[Alias]

Fat chance! It's too hard to study something that's roaming free. There isn't much land and water left that people are not already fighting over.
Anyway, how many of those wild animal parks are safe from poachers?

[Felix]

Remember how Jurassic Park turned out....

[Empiricist-Bruno]

It is unclear to me that Neanderthals Men are a different species from homosapiens.
Animals in the wild are in crisis at the moment with maybe a third of their population having disappeared or so since the 70s.
The kind of people that would want to pay for the reintroduction of mammoths are trophy hunters.
The kind of people that would oppose this are those who understand that you just don't mess with animals unless there is an altruistic angle to it. Forcing a pregnancie on any other is always immoral.

[TSBU]

Well, it would be not "reviving" animals, it would be reviving cells, and using them to create new animals similar to the ancient ones. Maybe reviving the specie would be a more accurate title for the thread.

Why would it be wrong? If the debate is about changing DNA, and, of course, out of god, or jurassic park... we are making transgenics now, and there are clonation farms now. And humans have been keeping the "best" animals and plants for reproduction for thousands of years. It's amazing what trangenics can do, it's amazing what genetic therapy can do. If we can create strawberrys with artic fish gens, that can live better in winter, why would be wrong to revive something that already has the gens, instead of creating it? There have been experiments with fosforescent pigs if you look for curious things, and there are many things that can be done with... embrionic cells? I don't know hot to say it in English. Like a cure for many diseases.

Now, there will always be people who will look you with bad eyes if you are using animals to experimentation, you experiment with changes in DNA, you use embrionic cells, using a condom, have sex with your won gender, eatmeat... And to... I don't know, but there sure is people who will look with bad eyes at you because you like to eat chocolate. No one can agree with everybody.

A mammoth? that would be in a circus or a zoo, and, knowing the monetary value of that animal, it would be surely keeped safe, there would be more money spent in keeping that animal comfortable, than money used in most of humans... that's not important for me anyway.

[Dolphin42]

I personally think that it would be exciting and a way to pay back for what we did, humans were responsible for many extinctions.

I'm not sure it really works like that. It sounds like atoning for murder by having a baby.

[Alec Smart]

but it might be perceived as 'intervening in Gods' creation' too.

I think it would be okay with God. If he created mammoths in the first place, he must have wanted us to have them.

[Sy Borg]

but it might be perceived as 'intervening in Gods' creation' too.

I think it would be okay with God. If he created mammoths in the first place, he must have wanted us to have them.

Yet, if She wanted mammoths to exist, then why do elephants exist? Surely that covers the huge-smart-herbivore-mammals-with-tusks niche.

If nothing else, at least the logic is woolly :)

[Alias]

but it might be perceived as 'intervening in Gods' creation' too.

I think it would be okay with God. If he created mammoths in the first place, he must have wanted us to have them.

he must have wanted us to have them
This is what makes it wrong.

[Roel]

It is unclear to me that Neanderthals Men are a different species from homosapiens.
Animals in the wild are in crisis at the moment with maybe a third of their population having disappeared or so since the 70s.
The kind of people that would want to pay for the reintroduction of mammoths are trophy hunters.
The kind of people that would oppose this are those who understand that you just don't mess with animals unless there is an altruistic angle to it. Forcing a pregnancie on any other is always immoral.

Well, you might be surprised to hear there already has been a revived species, the Iberian ibex.
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125- ... immer-text

It became extinct, but with help of science a new one of the same species could be created after the last one died. Would you also oppose it if a species can be saved, like here?

-- Updated November 14th, 2016, 8:30 am to add the following --

but it might be perceived as 'intervening in Gods' creation' too.

I think it would be okay with God. If he created mammoths in the first place, he must have wanted us to have them.

I 'm not religious or christian, but I don't get your logic here.