Figured we hadn't got a new topic of discussion in a long while, and this one happened to cross my mind.

Mammoth, Saber-toothed tiger, species that had gone extinct since the end of Ice Age, their predecessor, and their extinct successor. If we ever managed to develop such an advanced technology, should we bring them back into existence?

It's a neat concept.

Assuming it's they're not bred just to be sold off as tourist attractions, and allowed a preservation of land to then study their effect on the ecosystem; The actually important information that determines their survival with the evolution of germs and plants. Allergies might not zlet them survive, assuming they're let outside at all.

A national park of some sort, housing prehistoric-once-extinct creatures sounds awesome.

I think the possibility of them being an invasive species to the ecosystem isn't entirely out of the question either, the habitat they used to live and roam in might've balanced its food chain after their disappearance.

But would it be fair for them to only be kept in a closed-off sanctuary after being resurrected from ancient age? Of course its logical when you have the best intention of preserving their existence, but is it ethically correct?

I suppose the sanctuary could be the experiment to see if they destroy the environment. And if the ecosystem finds a balance they can be let out.

If all else fails; I think your question would be flipped - what else could you do but keep them in the sanctuary? Would that be considered a failed experiment and no other species are ressurected? And worse still would they dispose of their experiment instead of working to maintain the ecosystem around it?

Would the laws for the protection of endangered species be applied to them as soon as they're born?

Sorry for the delayed response.

At that point, perhaps its for the best that we preserve the existing ecosystem rather than letting them trample on the current existing ecosystem.

As for the invaluable live specimen, I think it will differ for each case. Definitely not all the resurrected would pose a threat to the current ecosystem, so the experiment would probably went on to revive another species. Some sort of study to predict whether releasing an extinct species to their natural habitat that has undergoes major changes as a result of their absence is a good idea?

Reviving something like an extinct butterfly definitely wouldn't threaten the current ecosystem either, but would it be wise to allocate a lot of resource to revive something that only lasted for days?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerces_blue

Though for the invasive ones, caged seems to be the only option and I don't see much alternative beyond that.

And for the last question, I believe 'X's population increased from 0 to 1' would be a top-notch news headline material. It'll instantly gain traction and a lot of people would most likely vouch for their rights.

discussion bum

>>5 I think there's a good chance some of the 'resurrected' species could actually be used to rebalance broken ecosystems- will be used. Not just species that were there before, but also species that have been either modified or just coincidentally evolved to be perfect for a place they've never been.

bump

What a very interesting topic! I really hope they do!

tbh we probably shouldn't they seem pretty deadly and the planet is way too hot for those animals to live comfortably anyway