Should humans toy with cloning extinct species?

dangerous game
In STRANDED, humans have depleted our resources and caused the extinction of numerous plants and animals. This is one of the reasons why the survivors of a war-ravaged Earth must find another planet to populate. But a group of people believe that humans ruined one planet, so have not right to populate and ruin another; and thus we have the suspenseful conflict in the STRANDED screenplay and novel.

Scientists now have the knowledge to make a ‘sci-fi’ movie concept come true. They can, or are on the very cusp of, reviving extinct species. See the fascinating article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/sutter-jurassic-park-endangered/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

But in life, just because you can do something, should you do it? If we bring extinct species back to life, are we ‘fixing’ the damage we’ve done? Or is the loss of a species, even though caused by our thoughtless hunting or the decimation of a species habitat, part of evolution?

Humans have, in the past, made a concerted effort to save species on the brink of elimination. In the case of the heath hen, the last survivors were placed in a protected state preserve in Martha’s Vineyard, yet the last one vanished in 1932 (a 1918 film of the bird may be the only extant video footage of a game bird that was once so abundant, that servants would ask to have written in their contracts a limitation on the number of times per week it could be served. – read Carolyn Y. Johnson’s fine article here: http://tinyurl.com/kref583

So is there a compelling reason to bring a species back to life, besides pure curiosity? Even if dinosaurs were brought to life and had a real-world Jurassic Park built for them, most people would come, stare at them with mouths agape, take a picture or two, buy a souvenir trinket, then go home and tweet about how ‘they saw a dino’. The majority wouldn’t lobby for protective measures or worry about the impact of such beasts among us or be concerned with the implications of the process; they’d just go on with their lives like humans do after witnessing events.

What impresses God most, man’s ability to destroy His world, or his ability to escape it?

Impress GodIn the novel STRANDED, as the bombs that will destroy Earth rain down, a lone starship blasts off from NASA. The six astronauts on board, carrying a database of 5,000 human DNA ‘strands’, have an important mission: to find a habitable planet, bring the strands back to human form, and thus save the human race. And as the ship thunders skyward, a NASA technician, who is about to be vaporized by a nuclear blast, ponders what will impress God most, man’s ability to destroy His world, or man’s ability to escape it?

Now, this is not a discussion about the existence of God; some believe in Him and some don’t. And even those that do believe in his existence have various religious affiliations, and thus don’t believe in the same thing. For example, there are those that believe that everything that happens on Earth, is planned by God; that ‘the Lord works in mysterious ways’. For example, if a little girl is raped, or a person loses a limb in a terrorist attack, they believe ‘it’s God’s will’.

There are others that don’t believe in a God that would allow such things to happen. They believe that God gave humans ‘free will’, and it is that free will that allows an evil person to rape the girl, plant the bomb, etc. And that God looks down and watches what we do and judges us and, of course, feels great empathy for those that are injured or wronged. What’s interesting is that people that believe this will sometimes have something good happen to them, or avoid an injury, or get a promotion, and in those circumstances they will say ‘Thank God!’, even though they believe He is ‘hands off’ in other situations.