this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
331 points (98.8% liked)
Tumblr
296 readers
11 users here now
Welcome to /c/Tumblr
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
- NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So what science should they have done before they discovered they could use living DNA to patch gaps in the dino DNA to complete the cloning process?
I really don't think they were just going down a random list being like "Mouse? No. House fly? No. Sparrow? No. Antelope? No. Octopus? No. Frog? Wait! Yes, thats the one!"
Can you clarify the ethics of cloning extinct species? Is it that cloning is always unethical? Is it that zoos are unethical? Is it a combination of creating living creatures wholly to be in zoos thats unethical?
What I'm trying to understand is if you have an ethical issue with the process or the goal?
None? What scientific purpose does cloning a dinosaur that is guaranteed to not behave, look like, or function like any actual dinosaur ever did? If the purpose was instead to fill gaps in “extinct dna” they would have instead tested on living dinosaurs like birds and removed part of their DNA and then tried to supplement it with the stuff they wanted to learn about. There was no purpose to cloning dinosaurs at all if you have no clue how they’re going to act.
Both? For one, bringing back extinct animals that we caused the extinction of is completely different than bringing back animals we know nothing about.
An extinct bird 100 years ago that might have affected the ecology of the island it was on, and we find a missing piece of DNA and can use that to clone the animal would tell us some about the animal. But the animal’s behavior will be completely different. We might or might not know if it needs a specific familial structure, specific nutrients, specific types of dwellings.
For a dinosaur that we know nothing about besides its bodily remains, cloning it will tell us nothing. It’s not the same planet, it’s not the same environment, it’s not the same DNA. There’s literally nothing about it that cloning would tell us more of. The only purpose would be for entertainment.
This gets covered extensively in the two part episode of Behind the Bastards on Dr George Church and his claims about bringing Dire Wolves back to life. We literally already can see exactly what the ethical and scientific problems with cloning extinct animals are right now. It’s not some movie plot. It’s really happening and the scientific results are useless.
You... DO realize science has many mechanisms to deal with studies where not everything is known... right?! You DO realize many, many scientists produce great results from studying things they do not currently understand, right?
For that matter, you DO realize most scientific breakthroughs happen while studying things they don't already know the result of, right? Your response reeks of ignorance on how knowledge is gained.
I do realize that. I also realize that many many scientists currently disapprove of exactly this kind of science occurring RIGHT NOW with Colossal Bioscience. I don't need to know every single scientific breakthrough that "might occur" when we have thousands of scientists saying that it's not cloning, it's not resurrection, it's a new animal. The scientific results can be gotten a different way and don't lead to eugenics.
It's abundantly clear that you were looking for me to say something specific so that you could attack just that argument. There's a difference between learning something from performing science, and choosing to perform science that will lead to bad outcomes. There's no reason to try to clone a dinosaur. We have plenty of other animals that will be much easier to clone, we will be able to learn more, and there won't be a ridiculously bad eugenics (or science) outcome at the end of it.
Nope, not waiting for anything specific. My comment was also in no way what so ever about the morals of the situation or whether it's wise to create new animals. Just that there is plenty to learn from experiments where the outcome cannot yet be predicted. That's uh... a very large portion of science.