| Thistle 20.10.2013 05:36 |
or are we just messing about with stuff we can't actually handle? I was just reading this, on yahoo, and it got me thinking: link Whilst all this sounds really exciting, what quality of life could we actually give to these "animals"? Take the example of the Mammoth: they say that although DNA exists, and the possibility IS there, the closest thing to be able to harbour it would be the African elephant (which isn't actually close in relation). The "Mammoth" would come out looking and acting like a mammoth, but the elephant would likely reject it, thus leaving it to be reared by humans and, in effect, likely losing it's instincts. So, would it then actually be a "mammoth"? Or just a "thing"? Apparently, there are talks of "bringing back" the Sabre-toothed tiger, giant sloths, the dodo, the pyreanian Ibex and even Neanderthal babies.....and artificial wombs for animals and even humans are possible within the next 16 years. Personally, I'm very intrigued.....but very worried about the consequences. Is this just all madness? Or can any good actually come of it? |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.10.2013 09:16 |
Interesting that this is possible, thoroughly unwise to bring back something that has been extinct as long as the mammoth. On the other hand, it is debatable whether it would not be beneficial to bring back animals that went extinct fairly recently, e.g. the dodo (contrary to popular belief they went extinct because of colonists' dogs eating all their eggs), Tasmanian tigers, Baiji river dolphin, etc. Animals are going extinct as we speak, most of them because of active efforts by profit-seeking human beings completely devoid of morals (like the Chinese with the Baiji river dolphin), not for any natural reasons, as was the case with the mammoth. |
| noorie 20.10.2013 11:02 |
I think planet earth is so over crowded right now, and can barely support all the species already existing. Why bring in more and create more problems? Let's care for the health of the planet first. Just my opinion. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.10.2013 08:52 |
I'm bumping this because it's the most interesting topic we've had here in ages. Go Thistleboy! If you're ever in the Zeeland-area, I owe you a beer. @Noorie: Wouldn't you say that restoring animals that recently went extinct due to harmful negligence or even direct intent by human beings would be part of caring for the health of the planet? |
| noorie 22.10.2013 10:25 |
I really do not know about that. I feel our planet is just so over crowded, I am not sure it could bear the strain of sustaining more life. I know I am putting this rather badly; hope you understand what I mean. I could be completely wrong... I think what is required is reducing our carbon footprint, growing more plant life, leaving natural forests etc alone, leaving wildlife alone, not destroying the habitats of other creatures, living with nature, not against it... Just my opinion. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.10.2013 06:17 |
Does "living with nature, not against it" not involve restoring the wanton damage done by industry, which is leading to the extinction of species even as we speak? Also, when you say "the strain of sustaining more life", you are referring to absolute numbers of living creatures, not the number of different species. In fact, the extinction of a single species can lead to a population explosion, as, for instance, the demise of a single predator can lead to a population of prey animals no longer being checked. As animals that are commonly prey to predators have a far higher rate of reproduction to survive the situation of being preyed on, this would lead to larger numbers of animals living in the same habitat. |
| Thistle 23.10.2013 07:35 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I'm bumping this because it's the most interesting topic we've had here in ages. Go Thistleboy! If you're ever in the Zeeland-area, I owe you a beer.I'd really love that :-) I'll let you know when I'm coming over :p |
| Thistle 23.10.2013 07:40 |
Back onto topic, though - I can actually see where noorie is coming from, but would lean more with TQ's sentiment. I'd be extremely worried about the condition of the "re-born" animals - however, if it can be done without any major flaw, then I think I'd welcome it. We (humans) are the single most destructive animals on the planet, yet we also have a conscience, humility and remorse (I'd hope) to undo what we've done wrong to this world. Hopefully, we also have the brains and tech to undo what we've done. That can only be a positive. |
| Thistle 23.10.2013 07:41 |
^ not that I'm implying we're *totally* responsible for the loss of animals (as nature, after all, is nature). |
| noorie 23.10.2013 10:07 |
Wow Thistleboy, you have really come up with a HUGE topic here. I agree with you and TQ in many ways, but this topic is way too complex. Two years ago I travelled to some really poor regions of India, and was shocked to see the level of poverty there. Killing tigers is totally banned there (and very rightly so!), but what do the starving hordes care? Killing one tiger for some rich guy will feed their family for over a year! So I do not think they have the luxury to think about reviving extinct species.Nor do they care very much about conserving any endangered species. All they care about is their own survival. And yet the thought of the future generations not being able to see tigers (or any other species) first hand is just terrible to me. I think this topic is getting too complex for me.... :) |
| Donna13 23.10.2013 16:53 |
Yes. Maybe. If we have the ability, maybe we (humans) should clone/recreate these extinct animals, but the ethics will always be tricky and probably sad at times. Science and ethics. I don't think it would be fair to unleash a new predator animal in a currently balanced ecosystem. Zoos and fenced areas with human assistance maybe for the bigger animals; maybe the birds would be OK in the wild, but also would be competing for resources. I think if we could go back in time and somehow communicate with a member of a now-extinct species, most likely that creature would want its kind to survive. If we could communicate with other competing animals, who are still thriving, they might say that they would prefer things to stay as they are now, so as to not shake things up too much. By the way, I didn't feed the birds all summer because I didn't want to attract bears and there were plenty of insects for them to eat. Just put out bird seed yesterday evening a couple of hours before dark and didn't see any birds. Maybe they forgot or got discouraged with me and flew south, I thought. No. This morning, saw a blue jay and a few other little birds in my bird feeding area - and several of the crows (I think the smartest of the birds). |
| Thistle 24.10.2013 16:59 |
noorie wrote: Wow Thistleboy, you have really come up with a HUGE topic here. I agree with you and TQ in many ways, but this topic is way too complex. Two years ago I travelled to some really poor regions of India, and was shocked to see the level of poverty there. Killing tigers is totally banned there (and very rightly so!), but what do the starving hordes care? Killing one tiger for some rich guy will feed their family for over a year! So I do not think they have the luxury to think about reviving extinct species.Nor do they care very much about conserving any endangered species. All they care about is their own survival. And yet the thought of the future generations not being able to see tigers (or any other species) first hand is just terrible to me. I think this topic is getting too complex for me.... :)That's a very thoughtful piece of insight. I haven't thought of it like that, yet, like you, the thought of future generations NOT being able to see the tiger is heartbreaking. I'm a real animal lover - sometimes I think I'd rather sit with a bunch of them rather than talk to another of my own kind as, sometimes, I'm just so disgusted with what I see around me. That doesn't mean I like to see folk starving, dying or suffering (which is the humility that others see in me), but I seem to be more touched by the plight of animals. I dunno - maybe I'm weird and need to think more about it more. You're right noorie, this is a very complex one indeed. |
| noorie 25.10.2013 10:19 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: You're right noorie, this is a very complex one indeed.And you thought it up! :) Actually I mentioned your topic to a couple of friends over coffee, and you provided us with a couple of hours of arguments and intense discussion. And then we all got up with headaches. So, thanks...? :) |
| Thistle 25.10.2013 14:07 |
^ LOL. I prescribe Migraleve for you all :p |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.10.2013 05:23 |
If you drink too much alcohol, you get a hangover. You can't blame that on the liquor producer. But we might have to add a disclaimer: Warning: immoderate discussion may adversely affect your health, resulting in headache, sore throat and damaged social relations. Enjoy discussion in moderation :P |
| The Real Wizard 26.10.2013 10:19 |
If we had nothing to do with an animal going extinct, then let it stay that way. It's the natural cycle of nature - 99% of the species that have ever existed are extinct, and new ones are introduced with evolution. However, our industrial age activities have been impeding on nature, so saving species that we are wiping out is a band aid solution, really. We need to butt out and evolve to a more sustainable existence that doesn't wreak havoc on everyone else. |
| noorie 26.10.2013 10:28 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: If you drink too much alcohol, you get a hangover. You can't blame that on the liquor producer. But we might have to add a disclaimer: Warning: immoderate discussion may adversely affect your health, resulting in headache, sore throat and damaged social relations. Enjoy discussion in moderation :PLOL! Good one! |
| brENsKi 26.10.2013 17:06 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: or are we just messing about with stuff we can't actually handle? Whilst all this sounds really exciting, what quality of life could we actually give to these "animals"? Or can any good actually come of it?well there's one thing in all of this that makes it worth the consideration in the first place: we (mankind) may be able to do it - no other living creature has that ability. secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be it |
| Thistle 26.10.2013 19:47 |
Bob and Brenski have given answers that are poles apart, but bring quite a lot to the table. Plenty to think about from both. @ Bob - regarding your view on those animals made extinct through nature: a point well made. I hadn't thought about it like that at all, although I still can't help but feel sorry for the poor bastards who didn't make it. I don't know if I can fully agree with your final sentiment, though. 'tis true that we do need to evolve and not wreak havoc, yet, with the possibility of righting wrongs.....I don't see why we can't marry both ideas. @ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-) Very insightful thoughts about "why" such DNA is left behind. I think you may be on to something, there...... |
| noorie 27.10.2013 10:38 |
brENsKi wrote: secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be itWow! THAT statement really shocked me into a completely different way of thinking this through. The BIG picture! Way beyond us wanting to see extinct animals roam the earth once again, or worrying about the planet, or the people... Our reality which is everything to us, is actually so insignificant. Just a bunch of DNA in the end. OK Thistleboy, more Migraleve please. I really do not want to think about this anymore, but keep getting drawn into checking out this topic. No more now. I'm done! |
| Thistle 27.10.2013 16:17 |
noorie wrote:Thanks for that noorie - I didn't actually pick up that Brenski may have meant it that way: you've literally made the penny drop. WOW indeed!!brENsKi wrote: secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be itWow! THAT statement really shocked me into a completely different way of thinking this through. The BIG picture......our reality which is everything to us, is actually so insignificant. Just a bunch of DNA in the end. 2 Migraleve coming your way :-) |
| brENsKi 27.10.2013 17:34 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: @ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-)yes people are dead, but their species isn't...WE continue. and, while our DNA get's embedded in some rock somewhere high up in the andes(or wherever) then long after humankind "appears" to have ceased to roam the earth, our species will exist for whoever comes later to "discover" and rejuvenate...which is no more than is being done with mammothkind... |
| noorie 28.10.2013 12:28 |
|
| noorie 28.10.2013 14:24 |
|
| noorie 29.10.2013 10:51 |
BRenSKi, I hope you are not upset. I am really really sorry if you are! |
| brENsKi 29.10.2013 11:22 |
noorie wrote: ‘What is it called?’ ‘A BRain ENhanced, Super Kinetic Intelligence!’ Oh! A BRENSKI! BRenSKi this is done with utmost respect, because I truly enjoy your posts, and believe you have super intelligencei don't believe for one minute that you actually mean that. let's face it if your "joke" was meant to be respectful to someone you felt was "superintelligent" then why not Real Wizard/Pittrek or Your valentine? - no you did this to have a dig. good luck to you....at least when i have a pop at someone, i don't hide behind "back-handed" compliments - if i'm having a go then the recipient is in now doubt about it. what you've done is a little cowardly noorie wrote: and a terrific sense of humour. No disrespect intended. BRenSKi, I hope you are not upset. I am really really sorry if you are! by the way - i'm not upset at the (ahem) "joke" - even though it lacks any kind of quality - as we've never really discussed anything - so i can not see why you'd individually select me.... what does upset me is that if you're going to "joke" then at least make it all your own work - don't go and start another "how do i paste a picture" thread - to elicit help to make your joke possible...it's lacking in loads in truth - you're batting way above your level better luck next time :-) |
| noorie 29.10.2013 11:30 |
"i don't believe for one minute that you actually mean that. let's face it if your "joke" was meant to be respectful to someone you felt was "superintelligent" then why not Real Wizard/Pittrek or Your valentine? .." Actually, this little story is set in the future and the creature the scientists re-create is just us humans. I used you name because you have been contributing to this topic very intelligently, coming up with ideas that had not occurred to anybody else. I really do find your posts most interesting and intelligent (I am not poking fun or being sarcastic here), and I meant it as a thumbs up to you. That is all! I am really and truly sorry. I absolutely did not mean it disrespectfully. "what does upset me is that if you're going to "joke" then at least make it all your own work - don't go and start another "how do i paste a picture" thread - to elicit help to make your joke possible...it's lacking in loads " I wanted to add the picture of that cute little human baby to show that it was the humans who were being re-created. I am not very smart in tech stuff, so I just asked how I could download a picture with my post. I have deleted the post. Please forgive me. |
| brENsKi 29.10.2013 12:49 |
brENsKi wrote:Thistleboy1980 wrote: @ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-)yes people are dead, but their species isn't...WE continue. and, while our DNA get's embedded in some rock somewhere high up in the andes(or wherever) then long after humankind "appears" to have ceased to roam the earth, our species will exist for whoever comes later to "discover" and rejuvenate...which is no more than is being done with mammothkind... Extinction: No longer existing or living. DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information. well in absolute terms then i'd say that the meaning of "existing" and "DNA" are pertinent to any calculation of extinction while DNA exists then, although the species doesn't "live", it still "exists" |
| Donna13 29.10.2013 19:18 |
Eventually this thread will become extinct due to a sad lack of survival skills, a harsh climate, and unanticipated meteor showers. |