Do you think cloning can help save various species?

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Agreed but we are the cause of this mass extinction in this case, not major climatic changes from meteor hits etc.



This is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read on this board. "It's an obligation to promote our welfare to the detriment of other species"???

All species depend on all other species for survival...yes the "Lion King" had it right...it's all about the "circle of life". If you take a look at a real forest, not a replanted single species forest, but a real forest or a real coral reef etc you will see that nature is designed such that nothing is wasted. The waste and detrius of one animal/plant are food for the next...it goes around and around...huge diversity, huge degrees of interrelation between species.

Enter humans...we are the most massive creators of waste immaginable. Much of what we make not only simply builds up but is also completely toxic to both our environment and ourselves. Take a look at organochlorides...they are relatively unknown in nature and as such cannot be broken down by biological systems...we, created substances and chemicals which are not only completely outside of nature but are actually starting our own extinction.

I believe that there is a solution, and it involves business...and every other person on this planet and doesn't involve "environmentalists returning us to the stone age"

I'll suggest a couple great books which I think get it right.
http://

First, toxic waste is relative --- what's toxic to you may be food to something else. Your statments reflect the bias of humanity --- what is pretty and tasty and fragrant to us should be the same for all creation. My wife is forever bathing the dog because he rolls in dead roadkill and smells bad --- but bad to her, I'm sure the dog thinks he's wearing Chanel No 5.

Methane eating bacteria don't consider methane toxic. So, several billion years ago, when algae started pouring oxygen into the atmosphere until the methane and carbon dioxide were choked out, were they pouring trillions of tons of toxins into the air? Yes --- for creatures living on methane, and those used to a reducing (not oxidizing) atmosphere. For many species, this was a disaster. For oxygen-breathers like us to evolve, it was essential. The assumption you make is that extinction always comes from without (asteroids) when, in fact, extinctions at the hands of other species seeking their own goals is common. Yes, we depend on other species but we can also do without otherss as well. The circle of life works both ways. nature is not a Disney movie --- everyone in the Lion King seemed to be vegan.

When environmentalists whine about how we are ruining the planet, they mean ruining for US as humans. The pretty trees, the cuddly mammals, the soaring eagles, the smell of the mountain air. But to life, any world can be beautiful. If we destroyed the earth with H-bombs today, there would evolve a slew of plutonium-eating bugs that will think they are in heaven. Life will prevail, it has seen worse than us and will again. THIS is arrogance, to think that our view of a beutiful planet should prevail, and prevail forever. That earth, a la Mrs Haversham, should be frozen in this era, this climate, this ecology, forever, just for our amusement.

The ecosystem works because all species fend for themselves and, in that cauldron of selfish competition, evolution can proceed. When beavers dam a stream, they reek havoc on other species upstream. Zebra mussels can alter the whole ecology of a lake, to the detriment of other species. Locusts can descend on a landscape and strip it bare in minutes. Do they care? No, not a whit. So when we dam a river, should we care? But, one might say, we are SMARTER than beavers, we should know better? Human arrogance again --- we can't craft the environment. For one, the ecosphere is more buffered and resistant to change than people imagine and for another, we aren't that smart or that powerful.

I'm not against trying to preserve what is beautiful to us, again, we have a right to seek what we want like any species. Save cute species, keep the water and air "clean" by our standards. But don't say that this favors nature, it favors us. Nature doesn't care, it will make do with whatever happens. I object to the idea that humans have some noble calling to protect the earth. The earth can protect itself. The combined intellect of the biosphere is far beyond our meager talents.

 

[drbill]

When environmentalists whine about how we are ruining the planet, they mean ruining for US as humans. The pretty trees, the cuddly mammals, the soaring eagles, the smell of the mountain air. But to life, any world can be beautiful. If we destroyed the earth with H-bombs today, there would evolve a slew of plutonium-eating bugs that will think they are in heaven. Life will prevail, it has seen worse than us and will again. THIS is arrogance, to think that our view of a beutiful planet should prevail, and prevail forever. That earth, a la Mrs Haversham, should be frozen in this era, this climate, this ecology, forever, just for our amusement.

You've GOT to be kidding with this argument. You honestly think that the toxics spewed into the environment, the over-fishing of most fish species, the extinctions we are causing daily, are not serious issues? Just ask the eagles on my island which cannot brood their eggs to hatching because of shells seriously thinned by high levels of DDT/DDE.

Yes, there will be those species that benefit from some of these "toxics." However, after the ones that don't die off (or evolve), what kind of food webs will be left not just for us but for all the other species? I'm certainly not interested in a diet of methane digesting bacteria.

As for your previous arguments re: cloning and evolution, you appear to be looking at the issue primarily from a physiological perspective (not surprising)... what about from an ecological-evolutionary perspective?

 

[ThatsSomeBadHatHarry]

Every organism on the planet uses it's adaptations to their fullest. we have a brain. without our brains, we would be pretty pathetic creatures, you have to admit. So what do we do? We use our brains to what we percieve as their full potential. We build, create, communicate with seemingly endless posibilities, have relationships, and at times, destroy. The thing is, we have the ability to not just blindly stumble into the future. We can forsee problems and try to avoid or remedy them.

For examle know that we have been puking out way more CO2 than we should be. the levels in the atmosphere are insanely higher than that of the pre-industrial age (before 1800). Although there are natural phenomena that can affect these things too, like volcanos and the release of methane from clathrates on the sea floor, we know that these events have not been significant to the change that has happened to the planet since the 1800's. It was us. It is our 19th century technology running our 21st century lives. Since we know that we created this and we have the capacity to recognize and change it, shouldn't that become our responsibility to carry the load? We don't have to preserve, but why wouldn't we?

It is in our best interest to do this anyway, if we want to survive, anyway. seeing as though that is the point of all this.

 

[archman]

A quick check with an article from Nature Biotechnology: Dolly died at age six from virally-induced lung cancer (sheep normally die at age 12-16), although that illness has apparently been known to kill young sheep. She was abnormally overweight and had a case of advanced arthritis for her age, but post-mortem was otherwise normal. Her chromosome length was, on average 20% shorter than a typical sheep, not longer.

Yep, you're right! It's cloned cows that are rocking the boat.
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0006-3363&volume=066&issue=06&page=1649

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

You've GOT to be kidding with this argument. You honestly think that the toxics spewed into the environment, the over-fishing of most fish species, the extinctions we are causing daily, are not serious issues? Just ask the eagles on my island which cannot brood their eggs to hatching because of shells seriously thinned by high levels of DDT/DDE.

Yes, there will be those species that benefit from some of these "toxics." However, after the ones that don't die off (or evolve), what kind of food webs will be left not just for us but for all the other species? I'm certainly not interested in a diet of methane digesting bacteria.

As for your previous arguments re: cloning and evolution, you appear to be looking at the issue primarily from a physiological perspective (not surprising)... what about from an ecological-evolutionary perspective?

Of course they are serious issues--- for us as humans, not to the biological world or to "Nature" for that matter. The vast majority of the earth's animal biomass is in microorganisms and invertebrates, particularly insects. And that's not taking into account plant life. You must be kidding if you think we can somehow, as a species, wipe out the world's massive food webs when an asteroid couldn't.

I go back to my favorite quote of biologist Huxley who, when asked what he'd discovered about God in his studies, replied "He's fond of beetles". Huxley illustrates that we have an inflated view of our role and impact on the planet. Humans, mammals, even vertebrates as a group are essential to us, not particularly essential to the living world. I've heard that the biomass of spiders alone exceeds that of humans. I think something like 2/3 of all species are insects. High-end organisms such as us just aren't that essential to the food chain. That's not to say they aren't important to us. We protect wildlife and fish for our use and amusement, not because they have some inate right to exist. A species that suits us, we keep, ones that don't, we discard (seen any smallpox lately --- doesn't that organism deserve endangered species status? How about rabies --- why vaccinate people and animals against rabies, doesn't it have a right to complete it's life cycle? Does the circle of life apply only to cartoon mammals and not to lethal pathogens?)

Look, I like the world as it is, with plenty of wildlife, fish, sweet air and all that, because I am human. My point is a philosophical one, not a practical one: when we are being pro-environment, we are being selfish: we are promoting the environment we like, species we like, air and water we like, not an environment that is somehow the "ideal" environment for all lving things. We can't ruin the earth, only ruin the earth we find appealing.

That said, indeed we should work to keep things healthy and pleasant for us, and, in application, that's what environmentalism is all about. What I'm criicizing is the abstract concept that environmentalism is somehow about the "earth" or "all living things" or about keeping the planet "healthy" ... nonsense, it's about US.

We have a right, as any other species does, of manipulating the world to our benefit using what biological talents we have been given. Environmentalism is the science of knowing when our technology becomes counter-productive to our interests, that's all. It isn't some noble quest, just another industry seeking to keep us happy.

(By the way --- tell the millions of people who die miserably each year from mosquito born diseases that they should be consoled by the increased number of bald eagles. Question: if it came down to having the bald eagle go extinct and using DDT to save a million African children from malaria, what choice would do we make? The issue isn't always one of "evil" toxin spewers and "good" environmentalists.)

 

[theskull]

Of course they are serious issues--- for us as humans, not to the biological world or to "Nature" for that matter. The vast majority of the earth's animal biomass is in microorganisms and invertebrates, particularly insects. And that's not taking into account plant life. You must be kidding if you think we can somehow, as a species, wipe out the world's massive food webs when an asteroid couldn't. . . .

Dude, I love the way you think. And brilliant exposition as well.

But, sadly, you are waaay too practical and realistic for the general population to get.

Enjoy your public thrashing, but at least know that there are some of us who applaud your attempts.

theskull

 

[archman]

You must be kidding if you think we can somehow, as a species, wipe out the world's massive food webs when an asteroid couldn't.

As an aside, we're currently experiencing a mass extinction event right now.

 

[Zingtea]

There are some species which definitely can't be saved with cloning, such as the entire order Cetacea. Whales and dolphins need parents to teach them to survive. Also, if you clone an orca and release him/her into the wild, it will be extremely difficult for him/her to integrate into orca society because he/she doesn't know how the right way to communicate, or behave, or anything.

 

[archman]

Ha ha, if we had to resort to cloning orcas in the first place, I'd wager there wouldn't be any wild populations for them not to integrate into.

On a more serious (boo!!) note...
There has been considerable success rearing altricial organisms using surrogate parent species. Zoos and animal rehab centers have been doing this for decades, even on marine mammals. I helped raise a baby bottlenose dolphin once. He was never expected to be released into the wild, though.

Lootas the sea otter (raised as a pup by humans) has a pretty good story all to herself, but she not been released into the wild either.

We can certainly keep the species alive... but yeah, figuring out a way to maintain the *culture* would be a problem.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Dude, I love the way you think. And brilliant exposition as well.

But, sadly, you are waaay too practical and realistic for the general population to get.

Enjoy your public thrashing, but at least know that there are some of us who applaud your attempts.

theskull

Thanks. Although it may seem otherwise, my goal is not to irritate or offend people but to make people think about scientific dogma that we often take for granted, even if I make some outrageous arguments at times. On the subject of cloning and cell biology, for example, we assume that multicellular creatures are more 'advanced' than single celled creatures. That presumes we know the relative complexity of cells vs organisms, which we don't.

Consider: 1) a single cell makes us (the ovum) and when it comes to reproduce, that must be done at the cellular level as well--- multicellular organisms in general lack the sophistication or complexity to reproduce without reverting back to the cell form (egg and sperm)
2) about 1/3 to 1/2 of a cell's genetic information is devoted to cellular function, not to multicellular organization... in other words, it takes as many genes to make a cell as it does to make an entire human body
3) the number of genes needed to make a fruitfly aren't that much less than needed to make a human, suggesting that multicellular life isn't all that diverse or complex
4) the basic cell format seems to have changed little over a billion years, while multicellular life is fluid (the cell format, in other words, has been perfected, while cells are still experimenting with their multicellular facades) --- remember that we are not colonies of different cells, but colonies of the SAME cell --- we are a contraption made of a trillion identical cells.

All of this suggests that our bodies are not significantly more advanced, cybernetically, over the single cell and that cells are the real rulers of the earth ---large ensembles of cells (humans, apes, whales and trees) are simply constructs a single cell uses as a survival tool.

The animal/plant kingdoms are just elaborate stage plays put on by cells. Since they compute at the chemical, or even the quantum, level, the intellect of the eukaryotic cell may be vast, perhaps significantly more than the human brain.