The Human end game: Sample and store, or conserve and protect
7 replies, posted
I think there's very little doubt in any rational mind anymore that human beings are causing harm to our planet and the other species that live on it. Taking this into account I ask you this question: Should we be trying to conserve and protect the other species on this planet, or should we sample and store their DNA as they become endangered from our activities, and just continue expanding at our current rate?
I think this is an important question because currently there are people of both groups fighting against each other, and it's causing both sides to use some less-than-savory techniques for furthering their agendas. I believe that the human race is more important than any other species on our planet, and as such a human life cannot be compared to any other form of life in terms of worth. With that belief comes the conclusion that we should not purposefully destroy the other life, but we should not let it's destruction hinder our progress. I think the only way that we can continue at our current rate is if we resolve to be indifferent to extinction. I see the current human form as just another step in natural evolution, and any species that go extinct because of it have had a natural extinction, not an artificial one.
I'm not saying we should go around destroying all other forms of life, but I am saying that if extinction happens as a side-effect of progress that is beneficial in a real measurable way, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it. I feel that with technology we can replicate any important parts of our ecosystem as they fall into extinction, and that is perfectly acceptable to do. I believe that efforts to conserve a species at the detriment of our own, or another species is highly unnatural and damaging to the overall ecosystem. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about burning oil and other things like that which have a cleaner, safer alternative. I am talking about situations where it is necessary for our progress to exploit a natural resource or species. Not for profit, but for human progress. I can envision a world where we have become the only form of natural life, and everything we need we have artificially created.
When I use the word progress I mean technologies that are developed which may cause harm to the ecosystem, but which make human life better in significant ways.
First off, I believe that we should be collecting and cataloging DNA samples from all possible species, especially the ones most in danger of extinction. Unforeseen circumstances or catastrophes could very well wipe out entire species if we are not careful, and so the opportunity to create clones to repopulate certain species should be realized. It's not mutually exclusive to either option you present.
As for whether we should preserve or sample, again, neither option is mutually exclusive. It all depends on the specific circumstances of each species involved. As a human, I can only believe that the human race is the most important species on the planet, like you said. And if there needs to be a sacrifice made in regards to one species in order that humanity can prosper, I would see that as a justified sacrifice. But at the same time, wanton and unnecessary destruction of species is pointless and harmful not only to the environment, but the the earth as a whole, of which humans are only a part.
When you say that humanity's actions towards other species is only another process of evolution, you are completely correct. There's nothing inherently "unnatural" about humans taking advantage of our intelligence to manipulate the world as we see fit. But using that intelligence to preserve the environment to the best of our ability is also natural, and it may very well be necessary for the survival of our own species.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44718375]First off, I believe that we should be collecting and cataloging DNA samples from all possible species, especially the ones most in danger of extinction. Unforeseen circumstances or catastrophes could very well wipe out entire species if we are not careful, and so the opportunity to create clones to repopulate certain species should be realized. It's not mutually exclusive to either option you present.
As for whether we should preserve or sample, again, neither option is mutually exclusive. It all depends on the specific circumstances of each species involved. As a human, I can only believe that the human race is the most important species on the planet, like you said. And if there needs to be a sacrifice made in regards to one species in order that humanity can prosper, I would see that as a justified sacrifice. But at the same time, wanton and unnecessary destruction of species is pointless and harmful not only to the environment, but the the earth as a whole, of which humans are only a part.
When you say that humanity's actions towards other species is only another process of evolution, you are completely correct. There's nothing inherently "unnatural" about humans taking advantage of our intelligence to manipulate the world as we see fit. But using that intelligence to preserve the environment to the best of our ability is also natural, and it may very well be necessary for the survival of our own species.[/QUOTE]
I understand that sampling and conserving are not mutually exclusive, and I also did not mean that we should choose one or the other exclusively. For a specific example I will use nuclear reactors. They pump a lot of hot water into natural water sources near where they are built, which sometimes has a detrimental effect on the life in those areas. I do not think that should be a reason to not build them. In this case some species may be heavily damaged if not extinct, but that shouldn't influence whether or not we do it unless it causes demonstrable harm to us. These are the kinds of choices I'm talking about, but I also mean not only today, but for the near and far future as well. Our activity has been causing damage, it's pretty much a fact at this point, and I don't think that we should slow down because of it(unless it can be proven to be more beneficial for our species in the long term)
sampling and storing won't work as a viable solution for animals since cloning would require a close relative, and an existing population to nurture it otherwise protection has been wildly successful in most cases except for ones we have gotten to too late or ones like African elephants who are still hunted for their ivory and now feet because of holistic medicines and sick rich people who still want ivory
for plants however collection and preserving works really well, the rechivic seed bank is an amazing thing as well as the jungle recreation that's in Europe somewhere. the problem is still one of protection though since many of these plants live in harmony with certain inscects and animals that removing them doesn't nesscisarily hurt the tree or plant but could prevent it from blooming naturally or reproducing naturally
One thing is for sure; we must be very (very) wise about it.
I think that a continual attempt to preserve them would be best. That said, we should always, always, always sample and store the DNA of any species of plants and animals we come across.
That way in the event of a mass extinction, we can fix things.
I think we should do both. Obviously no one wants tigers and elephants to go extinct, but civilization isn't mature enough to balance nature and expansion. So if some species go extinct, perhaps we will one day restore balance to the environment and be able to resurrect species.
I wonder if DNA can be 'saved' as information on a computure. Not necessarily physical DNA, but rather instructions on how to manipulate matter at the molecular level to create DNA.
In the end we have to find a way to co-exist with the rest of life on Earth. If we keep destroying everything in name of progress we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
What we need to do is both, but conserving should take the priority. If we ignore it all we could do damage to whole earth which we cant repair. Either we pay the cost of billions of dollars or we pay with billions of human lives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.