It's cool that we're at a point where we can even think about reviving a species, but there's so much to consider before doing so.
I think the most difficult point to consider is whether or not there is a reason to revive them beyond Human curiousity?
Captive breeding/release programs are difficult enough as it is with extant species, so how difficult might it be to release a species that has likely been missing from its previous environment for 100+ years, since its extinction the ecology of its previous territory has likely altered dramatically.
I personally do not like the idea of reviving a species just for it to live in captivity, it would be kind of a morbid reminder of our past mistakes.
I do however support the idea of employing the technology to help support currently endangered species that are close to being functionally extinct.
You raise some very good questions about the ethics of reviving extinct species, @amavi. In general I agree that it seems a bit unnecessary to bring them back to life unless we have a good reason to. Like when people argue that we should try to bring back the woolly mammoths to life; not only do they not really have a habitat anymore (except for Siberia), but does it really even make sense to bring them back at this point?
As for the Tasmanian tiger, I'm a bit more positive. My main argument for why I would want to bring it back is that it still has a place in the ecosystem on Tasmania. No other apex predator has really filled its niche yet, and there is still a lot of forest left for it to live in. In contrast to many other animals, it could potentially thrive in the wild if we humans try to stay away from it.
Anyway, thank you very much for writing such a valuable comment! And I'm terribly sorry that it has taken me so long to reply to it.
Best regards from @valth
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit