Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads! | Purchase An Ad Slot!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies. Want this topic removed from the archive?

Cinnamon

Why Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever Anymore

Recommended Posts

 Cinnamon    28,897

<snip>

They call it "de-extinction," the ability of scientists to resurrect extinct species from the DNA recipes encoded in their cells. Sadly the little kid had breathing problems and died just a few minutes after she was born, so the bucardo was not just the first animal ever to be de-extincted, it was also the first animal ever to go extinct twice.

De-extinction is an emerging but fast-paced area of scientific research. Around the globe, there are about half a dozen de-extinction projects ongoing. Australian researchers are trying to bring back the gastric brooding frog, a bizarre amphibian that brooded its young in its stomach then burped up fully formed froglets. In America, they're trying to de-extinct the passenger pigeon, a rosy-breasted bullet of a bird that once flocked in the billions. In South Africa, they're trying to recreate the quagga, a bizarre zebra-like creature with a stripe-less backside, while in Europe they're trying to revive the predecessor of modern cattle, the intimidatingly big-horned aurochs. In South Korea, Japan and the US, three separate teams of scientists are trying to de-extinct that most iconic of Ice Age beasts, the woolly mammoth

<snip>

http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/why-extinction-doesn-t-have-be-forever-anymore-n696106

Jurassic Park. We all know how that worked out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Ukshep    25,406
1 hour ago, Cinnamon said:

<snip>

They call it "de-extinction," the ability of scientists to resurrect extinct species from the DNA recipes encoded in their cells. Sadly the little kid had breathing problems and died just a few minutes after she was born, so the bucardo was not just the first animal ever to be de-extincted, it was also the first animal ever to go extinct twice.

De-extinction is an emerging but fast-paced area of scientific research. Around the globe, there are about half a dozen de-extinction projects ongoing. Australian researchers are trying to bring back the gastric brooding frog, a bizarre amphibian that brooded its young in its stomach then burped up fully formed froglets. In America, they're trying to de-extinct the passenger pigeon, a rosy-breasted bullet of a bird that once flocked in the billions. In South Africa, they're trying to recreate the quagga, a bizarre zebra-like creature with a stripe-less backside, while in Europe they're trying to revive the predecessor of modern cattle, the intimidatingly big-horned aurochs. In South Korea, Japan and the US, three separate teams of scientists are trying to de-extinct that most iconic of Ice Age beasts, the woolly mammoth

<snip>

http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/why-extinction-doesn-t-have-be-forever-anymore-n696106

Jurassic Park. We all know how that worked out. 

They seem to forget the animals of each period were gods of nature... Resurrecting multiple gods of nature will eventually lead to us ending up further and further down the food chain. Not that we are gods. Just needs to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 entrance    0

If we are able to clone animals, we could collect cells of animals and build a modern Noah's Ark. We could use this collection to settle some animals species on other planets. We wouldn't have to fly living animals to such a planet. Some of their cells would be enough. I think this would be really great.

But why should we do this on Earth? To put them into cage? Just for fun to entertain visitors and to make money? I believe the scientists should distinguish between:

- Extincted animal species because of natural evolution.

I believe we should not act against nature's will.

- Extincted animal species because of humans' arbitrariness:

Here de-extinction could make sense, to resettle some useful and harmless animals. We would accept these animals. But noone would accept predators. We are already hunting them. We don't want them. They are dangerous for humans and they kill our sheeps, cows, goats, and so on.

The problem is human overpopulation. Every day we need more space for buildings, streets and fields for cultivating food. Deforestation takes place all over the world. Every day we destroy this world a little bit more. According to the global humans' geological footprint we already need more than 1 Earth. There is hardly any space for further animals.

If we could solve this overpopulation problem, everything would be different. This would solve problems like climate change, lack of food, mass migrations, mass extinction of animal species, increased emergence of new epidemics and pandemics, elevated crime rate, and so on. Some countries in Africa and Asia already have been trying to slow their population growth down by means of mass abortions, laws and financial incentives. I think we should try to reduce the human world population to 3 or 4 billions. Then Earth could certainly reestablish a natural balance. I am ready to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×