Do you think cloning can help save various species?

[Lancelot]

Hi All,

I was just wondering if you think the advances in cloning could play a role in helping replenish the oceans with various species such as...

1. Endangered species in general
2. Sharks
3. Overfished species
4. Feeder fish
5. ????

It seems that the scientific community is at the edge of being able to successfully clone some of these animals. Don't you think we could make a big impact on the negative tendencies referenced so many times in this sub-forum through cloning?

Lance

 

[archman]

1. Endangered species in general-No
2. Sharks-No
3. Overfished species-No
4. Feeder fish-No

Public perception of successful cloning, and potential applications for it, is vastly overrated. And the costs are vastly underrated. Cloning would be useful if one were trying to maintain a master pedigree line for say, a bio-engineered crop or a stud cow. Cloning is also useful for replication of say, human organs for transplant purposes. All of these are highly controlled, laboratory setting applications. And excepting organ/tissue cloning, very low yield. They're all expensiver than crap, too.

Low tech applications such as marine reserves and hatcheries are an effective tool currently in place. For the critically listed charismatic megafauna, captive breeding programs spearheaded by zoos and aquariums may work, as they have shown for many terrestrial species.

 

[JahJahwarrior]

if you cloned things, wouldn't you have problems of inbreeding? I don't want ot eat a catfish with 2 mouths.

 

[dbombtek]

cloning is a pause in evolution not a step in evolution if sucessful it would repopulate some species but over time they would still not evolve and futhermore im a darwin fan.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Cloning would not solve the problem that caused extinction in the first place, such as loss of habitat. Cloned animals can live in zoos so we could pet them. Swell.

I'm a little cynical when it comes to endangered species --- the vast majority of species that arose on this planet are extinct. All species have a limited tenure, and the thought of eliminating extinctions altogether is nonsense.

We tend to be anthropomorphic with regards to endangered species --- I don't see a lot of support for preventing the extinction of malarial parasites, or the HIV virus. We want to save the Siberiian tiger because it's majestic and has cute cubs, in other words, so it can please us.

Environmentalists have a schizophrenic view of humanity's role in all of this: we are either a) just another animal, with no special place in the biosphere, or 2) stewards of the earth. I believe the former, we are just another species. As such, we have a right --- in fact an obligation --- to promote our own welfare even to the detriment of other species because that's the way nature has worked for billions of years. If our presence makes hundreds of mammal or fish species extinct, then they deserve to go extinct, period. That's the way the game is played...and if our behavior makes the world inhospitable to us and we go extinct, then we deserve it too. Selfish behavior is the engine of evolution. Suppose the business world were run by environmentalists --- no company could be allowed to fold because we need "business diversity". Thus, the computer world would still be making Bowmar brains and commodore 64s because we would never allow them to go extinct from the market.

The absurd notion that we have enough brainpower to micromanage the species balance of the planet is pure arrogance.

I think Blue Oyster Cult said it best --- history shows again and again how Nature points out the folly of men (or something like that).

 

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

if a species is cloned, there is a severe lack of genetic variation that would normally occur with the normal breeding of two individuals in sexual reproduction. there would be no beneficial mixing of chromosomes during "crossing over". it would just be the same chromosome mixing with the same chromosome and would lead to a stagnant gene pool of the progeny. only natural mutations in the dna strands would give diversity but would not be sufficient. the problem with the lack of the genetic diversity may leave that species susceptible to a disease that may just wipe them all out. there could be a serious lack natural immunity for certain diseases

 

[drbill]

Cloning duplicates the genetic composition of individuals. A population createde from largely cloned individuals would likely not have the genetic diversity necessary for that population to successfully adapt to change. There are examples of genetic bottlenecks, species whose populations declined to just a few dozen individuals with limited genetic diversity, which have survived over time. Examples include the northern elephant seal, the Guadalupe fur seal and the southern population of sea otters.

 

[Lancelot]

Public perception of successful cloning, and potential applications for it, is vastly overrated. And the costs are vastly underrated. Cloning would be useful if one were trying to maintain a master pedigree line for say, a bio-engineered crop or a stud cow. Cloning is also useful for replication of say, human organs for transplant purposes. All of these are highly controlled, laboratory setting applications. And excepting organ/tissue cloning, very low yield. They're all expensiver than crap, too.

So are you saying that you can't possibly see cloning becoming more and more perfected as time goes on? Science will not continue to better its overall results? Costs will not come down? Efficiencies in cloning will not progress?

Lance

 

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

So are you saying that you can't possibly see cloning becoming more and more perfected as time goes on? Science will not continue to better its overall results? Costs will not come down? Efficiencies in cloning will not progress?

Lance

even if it does get "better" it is still cloning. It's a dead-end road. A temporary fix.

 

[Lancelot]

Cloning duplicates the genetic composition of individuals. A population createde from largely cloned individuals would likely not have the genetic diversity necessary for that population to successfully adapt to change. There are examples of genetic bottlenecks, species whose populations declined to just a few dozen individuals with limited genetic diversity, which have survived over time. Examples include the northern elephant seal, the Guadalupe fur seal and the southern population of sea otters.

I can very easily see science moving forward to the point whereby genetic diversity can be bioengineered. We would not necessarily be limited to replicating existing genetic types of a given species. Do you think my idea is out of the question? I admit this is flirting with the "playing God" side of the equation but is genetic engineering really that far away from this ability within lets say... the next 100 years or so?

Lance