Hi, Onifre.
Thanks for the response.
onifre writes:
The money spent on research for cloning extinct animals can be put to better use in preserving their natural habitates.
Well, you certainly raise a good point: sooner or later, we're bound to have to face the dilemma of continuing to rape nature or initiating human population control. I'm afraid to think of the wars that might be waged over that issue, but this dilemma is surely coming.
But, trade-offs aside, if an animal is clearly doomed (or if we have already killed it off), and there is no way to feasibly return it to the wild, is it morally warranted for us to preserve a few specimens? The other responders have mentioned the value of conservation for human benefit, but, what about
nature's benefit? Would preserving an otherwise-doomed animal in captivity (perhaps through cloning) be a way to sort of "make it up" to Mother Nature?
It seems that, whatever we do, it will have a major impact on the natural world and its future, which kind of makes it hard to decide what the "right" thing to do is. Enforced isolation of wildernesses would be a noble goal, but probably impossible to achieve. Killing some animals off causes ecological imbalances. Preserving all species may impact ecological succession and alter evolutionary patterns. If the "right" thing to do is to preserve nature's sovereignty over itself, it seems we've already failed.
I personally feel that preserving as much wilderness and as many species as we can, even if only by keeping small captive populations, is morally the safest stance we can take, given our options. But, on a purely practical basis, I'm not sure there is a solid justification for this, because it may effect the future just as much as killing things off, and, as Annafan said, there's a slippery slope there that would have to be guarded carefully.
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2