Is it ethical to bring something back to life?

I think it an important technology to explore. (actually, in this case it’s not really a technology, but rather just the planting of some old seeds found in a hole)

One of the primary side effects of climate change (regardless whether it is man made or natural) is loss of suitable habitat, which leads to less biodiversity. The ability to essentially bring extinct species back from the dead might just help us save this blue marble in the event of apocalyptic catastrophe.

There are, of course, ethical considerations that should not be taken lightly. But then again, isn’t that the case with most scientific advancement?

Taken to its logical extreme, your suggestion is that we should never tamper with nature in any way at all. Why take penicillin when you are ill, because that is tampering with the natural course of germs and cells. Why plant crops, since that is in some way tampering with the natural growth of flora? Why breed cattle (or horses or sheep) to be stronger and hardier, because that is tampering with things that happen naturally?

Now I realize that you’re not taking that extreme of a position, but logic tells me that is where it could go.

I read that same article, and I would say “why not revive it?” if it can teach us things. It clearly lived on earth previously, so it’s unlikely to be dangerous. It isn’t mixing genes like some current experiments do. It’s simply adding dirt and water and causing something that used to exist to live again.

Carrier pigeons were made extinct in the 1920s- would you react the same way if a small group were found and nurtured again?

My conclusion : this is what science does best.

Jurassic Park anyone? I think it is a complicated issue; not sure if I am concerned with ethics so much as unforeseen consequences.

I would object bringing something like dinosaurs back (I’ve seen Jurassic Park) but see no problem bring back plants as long as they are confined to the laboratory. It is possible that some of the plants will overrun modern plants and forests or contain allergens that are particularly virulent.

It might even be a good idea to bring back neanderthal man. I would like to know if they were really smarter than us.

The ethics of a situation like that are unknowable at this point in time. We have to wait to see the consequences of the action. The the ethical thing to do would be to bring it back in such a way that if it turns out to be a bad idea, we can re-extintualize the life form without further harm to humankind. To bring back such an alien species without precautions would be unethical.

We are having so many problems already with non-native plants and animals being transported to new areas and doing damage that it is a real concern for me.

I don’t think we can assume that just because things have happened to shake out a certain way in the biosphere, the resulting state of affairs is inherently “right” and that it’s consequently “wrong” to influence that result.

Man has “sponsored” certain strains of DNA for a very, very long time, taking them under our wing and making them flourish in ways they couldn’t have on their own. That has helped our survival as a species.

Unlike @wundayatta , I don’t think the ethics of a particular decision are determined by how the decision plays out in the long run. Ethics aren’t determined in retrospect. To be ethical requires that one exercise due diligence at the time of the decision, trying to foresee, in our imperfect way, how things will play out, and doing our best to avoid harm. Things may still go awry, but that doesn’t mean the decision was unethical; it was just mistaken.

Sounds like a great idea for a novel @Ron_C

Well meaning laboratory scientists bring back the neanderthal to find that not only are they smarter than us, they consider us to be an inferior species to be subjugated like cattle. So… “Adam Prime”, the first re-created neanderthal sets about to doing just that….

I agree with @janbb and in the case of humans, well…not if bringing them back means brain damage and extreme physical compromise. I tend to think that our obsession with living forever is unhealthy and grossly narcissistic. If given a choice I’d rather see certain extinct species of plants and animals resurrected that could potentially benefit the planet rather than humans living to a 150 years old.

I don’t see a problem with it. How is it unethical? This assumes nature is something precious we shouldn’t tamper with, but there’s no objectives rules or laws about this.

@thorninmud I agree with due diligence at the time of the decision to do something. However, I think the ethical onus doesn’t stop there. I think we should still be responsible for the consequences of our actions later on down the road, so that if we screwed up, despite our due diligence, then we try to make it better. Your ethical duty doesn’t stop just because you did everything you should do at the time of the decision.

Your duty continues—to remain ethical, you must monitor the consequences of your actions long after you took the action. A decision is not a single, set thing. It continues on, leading to many other decisions. If you do not plan to continue to remain responsible for a decision, long after it has been taken, then I don’t think it could be considered an ethical decision.

@wundayatta Agreed. So I would say that bad consequences don’t make the original decision unethical. But having made the decision, ethics requires that one take responsibility for the outcome.

By itself, I do not see why it would be unethical. Nature is not a person with will and supreme authority that you must not transgress against.

I don’t think it is unethical, but we need to exercise extreme caution in taking it beyond the laboratory walls. We’ve seen the law of unintended consequences come into play over and over with the introduction of African honey bees into the Americas. We hoped to develop a more resilient hybrid here, but got killer bees instead. Same goes for bringing Asian carp to a river and lake system where they have no natural predators to keep them under control. And kudzu introduced to beautify bare spots along highways in the US has become an invasive species covering large areas of acreage and killing all other trees and variegation in them.

What might come of reintroducing a long extinct life form back into the wild is anybody’s guess. Best not go there. But bare in mind that what the Russian scientists did was plant a seed they found frozen and preserved in ice. Either natural or man-made global warming could easily have done the same as the ice holding the seed melted. So perhaps we should consider the ethics of “drill baby drill” and all the environmental havoc it will wreak, as well.

The reason I ask this question is because on Yahoo, where I first saw the article about this, there was a little debate over the ethics of bringing back things to life. The train of logic of those who deemed it unethical was more or less along the lines of that first you bring a plant to life, okay, no harm no foul so let’s bring something a bit more complex to life say an insect, then a small mammalian creature, then something a bit larger, and larger until you’re bringing back neanderthals and dinosaurs. So where do we draw the line? When does it become too far? If you bring one thing back, why not another and another and another? The other party was similar to several of you above saying what’s the harm of it if it just stays in the lab? That’s what piqued my interest to see where my fellow jellies stand on the matter. Personally, I don’t really care. If you bring something back that ends up screwing the human species over, well, sounds like a party to me.

@ETpro Right you are! The vast majority of times we have tampered with the balance there have been unsavory consequences.

@ragingloli We ARE nature, there is no separation, and just because we have the brain power to tamper with the rest of the planets organisms doesn’t mean we should.
Everyone knows that Einsteins contributions to nuclear weapons caused him a great ethical distress as a scientist of integrity.

In your example: no…it’s not unethical at all. The organism in question did not die and then was subsequently brought back to life. The individual organism was born anew (just merely based on the blueprint of a species of which no others exist at present).

@Coloma
It also does not mean we should not.

I agree with @janbb. Look what happened to the red squirrels here in England,

Why not.Only I wouldn’t suggest bring back large animals or insects with ravenous appetites.. Plant life is no biggy. If it can’t survive in our enviroment than it won’t.

They did this already back in the eighties with Ronnie Reagan, several times.
“Oh Nancy, don’t stop. Ride that pecker like a cowgirl!”

@ucme images… In my head, I never needed to see…

@King_Pariah Aww come on, coulda been worse…....George & Barbara, barf!

@ucme Barbara is a total GILF though

@King_Pariah She does have a nice bush it’s true.

@YoBob Robert Sawyer actually wrote a series about the Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals meeting. He described Neanderthals as just as intelligent as we are but much less agressive.

I’ve read other things comparing us to the Neanderthals and the consensus is that they were probably as least as intelligent as us. The main difference is the aggression level. We didn’t win out over them because we are smarter, we’re just meaner and more ruthless.

If any scientists in the future discover my grave and want to bring me back to life, I hereby give my permission.

@Ron_C – That is one theory. However, I seem to remember reading recently that DNA researchers are currently thinking that we did not conquer the Neanderthals, but rather intermingled with them until they were absorbed into our current genome.

To deny the human race the opportunity to explore just because something we find just might possibly have some sort of negative effects, would be to deny part of the very essence of who we are.

@YoBob I hope you’re right and early humans had a thing for girls with a unibrow. That is better than being descended from a race of ethnic cleansers.

@Coloma I would not agree that we screw up on most tries. Dogs are the result of 10,000 years or more of human intervention in the cross-breeding of wolves. Most of our domestic animals today are highly hybridized. The same goes for much of our vegetable food supply. We actually get it right far more often than nature does through evolution. Far less than 1% of the species nature “invented” are alive today. Almost all were abject failures. I didn’t mean to say don;t try. I just meant to be cautious and move only when we are certain we;ve analyzed the change sufficiently to introduce it into the wild.