The Batlord

Whether or not we killed it is irrelevant, unless you have some wishy washy notion of karma or whatever. Just because something went extinct due to non-human environmental factors doesn't mean that A.) it should stay dead just cause, or that B.) it couldn't thrive under a different environment (which would make its original extinction a moot point).

The issue is more along the lines of the meat industry: is it okay to breed organisms specifically for our own purposes, regardless of whether or not it benefits or harms that organism?

*shrug*

If we're already breeding chickens by the millions and treating them like ass then does it make sense to create a double standard when playing god? Not a true answer to the question, but **** it.

__________________

BlackMalachite

I believe it's a completely relevant point, considering a major argument by a lot of people against de-extinction is "well nature made it die for a reason." We're not nature, we've evolved to a point where we control ecosystems instead of participating in them.

Frankly it's because the animal being brought back from the dead is of more scientific importance than the average farm chicken. While I think it's disgusting how a lot of farm animals are treated (some of the footage I've seen is absolutely disgusting), it still doesn't change the fact that the two in terms of stature and population are fundamentally different and not subject to that double standard.

The Batlord

That's some more wishy washy bull****. Unless you're using "nature" as a euphemism for God then it's just a nonsense poetical term referring to a ball of rock with a bunch of stuff on it. Nature has no reason.

A random sub-species of fiddler crab might go extinct simply because it was not entirely "maximised" to live on the mile of coastline that it evolved on, even though given the chance it could have been strong enough to have become an invasive species on 90% of the world's other coastlines.

And if we're just talking about recreating extinct species in laboratory conditions then the point becomes entirely moot (though if we're talking about reintroducing extinct species into environments which may very well have evolved to exist without them then the common sense alarm bells need to start sounding.)

That sounds like it has less to do with extinct species and more to do with genetic research in general, making extinct species a red herring. If the issue is what could be done with the research from a velociraptor or a dodo bird that could lead to some big heavy SyFy Channel b-movie ****, then you're not really talking about velociraptors or dodo birds in the first place.

__________________

BlackMalachite

Studies into extinct animals could yield research about more sustainable genetic options which in turn could be utilized in GMOs which everyone on the planet consumes.

Well obviously a GMO de-extinct animal isn't going to be exactly the same as its counterpart (unless they do the method Japan is using where they literally splice the embyro's DNA to unlock the hidden genes of its ancestor using previous blood and modern techniques), I wouldn't exactly call it a red herring since the resulting creature is likely 95 - 99% similar (they've already resurrected an extinct animal, the Pyrenean Ibex, but it died seven minutes after birth due to lung complications)