Should scientists clone endangered species
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Of course! If these species would to ever die out, we would need some clones to help us learn their ways. We would probably progress more as humans to improve ourselves from learning some useful things. Really, the list of why we should clone endangered animals is pretty long, and is pretty obvious we should clone. We, as a people have harmed and endangered so many animals that we must atleast try to balance the eco-system we upset. Many animals are suffering from what we did that we need to clone them to keep them alive. Side: Yes
2
points
I see you're still copying and pasting other people's arguments without giving them credit. Shame on you http://www.debate.org/opinions/ Side: Yes
Only the tastiest of them all! Really though who are we to say what species lives/dies out? I do not say we do this to preserve biodiversity or because humans are the reason of certain species are going extinct. No not to save a species but to get a better understanding of cloning and work out more kinks in the process. Of course saving animals could be an additional possible benefit, my angle is raising money to save animals gives another avenue for additional funding making a mutually beneficial relationhip! Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
If a species is endangered due to natural causes, though, I think we should let nature take it's course- maybe they'll even adapt and survive. We humans and our cities, towns and etc. are a part of nature as well, because we and everything we create, is all a part of the earth and thus no matter what happens a species is always endangered due to natural causes. Unless it's true that we are from another planet and only came here because our planet ran out of resources, but there is no evidence for that, I guess. Side: No
2
points
No. From dictionary.com: nature Use Nature in a sentence na·ture [ney-cher] Show IPA noun 1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers. 4. natural scenery. 5. the universe, with all its phenomena. natural Use Natural in a sentence nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. 3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. 4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments. 5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. Other sources corroborate these definitions. I'm referring to nature as in naturally occuring, as opposed to artificial as in created by man. Homo sapiens are natural, but cities and towns are artificial. Species killed by unarmed men could be said to die of natural causes, species killed off using weapons or due to agricultural/industrial activities could not. Side: Yes
|
If we were to start cloning these species it would completely ignore the problems which caused them to become endangered or extinct in the first place. Where will they live? What will they eat? Even if human activity wasn't to blame for their scarcity, these problems would still remain. If they are re-introduced into the same habitat which they died off in, the solution would be redundant. If we move them to another location we would be upsetting the balance of that ecosystem. We may also be introducing an outright invasive species which would destroy more biodiversity than we had repaired. As for the situations where we are to blame specifically, well, we need to take responsibility for our own actions and change our behavior. Side: No
I should also note that you can't just clone a species without some serious complications. We would need to collect material from a huge amount of existing creatures for it to be feasible. Genetic diversity needs to be well established or the population will collapse due to birth defects and sterility. We need to understand that the natural world is self regulating. The answer is not to attempt to control it, because that's what is leading to so many of our problems. A more effective solution would be to minimize our impact on other lifeforms as much as possible. Side: No
2
points
1
point
|
