Discussion on:

Cloning vs. conservation

Zoos, or their equivalents, will be the primary beneficiaries of "seize 'em and freeze 'em," because this approach does not capture either 1) the biodiversity represented in a species or 2) the functioning of the ecosystem in which the species was an element. On the biodiversity question, consider the adequacy of preserving the human species by freezing the eggs and sperm, or else the somatic tissue, of just two individual humans. Or even of a thousand individuals. You get a genetic bottleneck, a population with insufficient genetic diversity to avoid inbreeding diseases -- like cheetahs. As to the ecosystem issue, which is more difficult to quantify but just as real, consider what we would have if Bishop de Landa had not burned the codices of the Maya. Those books were the distillation of Maya knowledge and culture. Yes, it would be great if humanity had access to that written record, but that would not bring back that culture, which the Spaniards subjugated, because culture is a living thing. Same with the ecosystem, which as as much a universe of functioning relationships as it is a collection of genomes.

...and mostly with John, who concludes that substituting cloning for conservation is a terrible idea, even though it might be a prudent thing to do as long as it doesn't decrease the effectiveness of our conservation efforts. To even think that it would be a substitute for the real thing would be a grave mistake, but if genetic materials can help reconstruct a species from the unthinkable, it might be worth pursuing, just as we do with germplasm and seed banks for plant diversity. There will never be an economic justification for destruction of the Amazonian rainforest basin--our entire planet benefits from its continued existence in ways we know and don't know, and the costs of trying to replace it would probably be paid by our own extinction, so there is no reason to even go there. Much more worrisome is our inability to control our destructive habits even though we are fully aware of the consequences. We wouldn't be the first civilization to fall under that description, but we could very well be the last if we decided to go ahead and try!

Cloning for future preservation is going to become a sore subject to different people,or a blessing to others.depending on the perspectives of what the cloning is used for.Cloning can lead to trouble if they start cloning clones for repoduction purposes since the genes would degragrate over time.Accord to scientist,each gene segment has a unique characteristic that would be destroyed if over cloned.it would eventually die or create an offshoot that could destroy the species.

In about 60-80 years, according to Kepler's law and ceteris paribus, the normal-sized hard drive will be 1 yottabye. The cost to produce that today would be about $100 trillion.

That to say, technological advances should make it possible to store the extensive, but tiny bits of "code" in DNA, as a common thing.

One doesn't need to speculate too hard to think it could be possible to reverse the concept...instead of just "reading" the DNA data to a hard drive, one could also "write" out the sequence, which could be implanted into a cell. And presto! Immortality...of a sort.

The trouble with technologies like cloning and GMOs is that they are misplaced, not that they are inherently bad.

Take the example of genetically modified crops of the type about which the "birkenstock crowd" is all up in arms. Let's face it, we've been "modifying genetics" of crops since Mendel, and one risks being a luddite to oppose the most modern version.

However, because GMO research is funded by Monsanto (rather than the public sector), the aim is not to make crops that are resistant to various blights and pests, but to make crops that can handle the poisons that the research funders wish to foist upon the American public.

As in the case here, cloning is not considered as a way of saving some endangered species, but as an excuse to trash the environment.

Re:
"Pushing future cloning technology instead of conservation is a terrible idea."
This is a false alternative if there ever was one. Obviously, you can do both, pursuing cloning while also engaging in conservation efforts. You do not have to choose between the two.

You propose to destroy something real to preserve something imaginary. Do these people actually believe money exists outside of the human mind?

You are right about money. Nearly every national currency has been allowed to "float" against other currencies and the trade changes constantly. There are standards of measurments for quantity, distance, time and others that use meters, liters, gallons, minutes and other units but there isn't one for wealth.

Lets break something, or kill it off, so we can spend millions of taxpayer dollars fixing the problem.