Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Bringing back the extinct


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,991 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

http://www.ted.com/t..._you_ready.html

 

can we bring back extinct animals? should we?


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#2
Fatalbert911

Fatalbert911

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Locationusa, east coast

Jurassic park in the making lol, i think for the scientific aspect of it yeah we should bring some species back. but no doubt it's one of those things that we have to do with much much caution. we wouldn't want to accidently knock ourselves out of the top of the food chain or something 



#3
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,724 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

Yes, we should. How else are we going to reseed the planet with diversity once 90% of animal and plant life is extinct in the wild? :meeting:


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#4
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

I didn't know there was actually a group of scientists doing this together.  That is awesome, great video.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#5
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

idk, new animals could pick up and mutate modern diseases since they are not fully evolved, its just a possibility.

 

but maybe in zoos it wouldnt be too bad, there are some super huge species that would be cool to bring back; under human control ofcourse. definately not to bring back into the wild.

 

Also, i've always wondered how a fried or scrambled Dinosaur egg would taste. it'd be so much food!!!

 

if we brought back pterodactyls, would migits and dwarves be able to fly them? lol


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#6
Russell's teapot

Russell's teapot

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • LocationNorway

Bringing back extinct animals is a fabulous idea. We need to bring back Megatherium, also known as the giant ground-sloth:

Posted Image

 

It's not unthinkable that we will find intact DNA from several of the extinct megafauna-animals that went extinct relatively recently. After all, we've already found intact mammoth DNA preserved in the permafrost.

 

Oh, and we should also bring back the Moa-bird, which was really awesome:

Posted Image


Theorem: It is always too soon for despair. Proof: We do not know our fates.

- Robert C. W. Ettinger


#7
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow

- Can humanity repair damage it has done?

- Can hen lay falcon's egg?

 

... surprisingly, yes.


"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#8
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts

In the near future, hopefully within the 21st century, this could be an excellent way to increase the populations of endangered species, and indeed bring back extinct species and rehabilitate their populations.



#9
sweetwilliam

sweetwilliam

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • LocationDenmark
In the near future, hopefully within the 21st century, this could be an excellent way to increase the populations of endangered species, and indeed bring back extinct species and rehabilitate their populations.

 

Yes this is what I am thinking as well

 

It would also be cool to bring back some of the species we humans have hunted to extinction, though as far as I know good DNA samples are damned hard to get a hold of, unless they have been preserved in ice like the mammoths (thinking of dodos and tasmanian tigers, stuff like that)


The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason..... Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason's light

- Richard Rahl and Zeddicus Zorander, protagonists in the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind


#10
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
In the near future, hopefully within the 21st century, this could be an excellent way to increase the populations of endangered species, and indeed bring back extinct species and rehabilitate their populations.

 

Yes this is what I am thinking as well

 

It would also be cool to bring back some of the species we humans have hunted to extinction, though as far as I know good DNA samples are damned hard to get a hold of, unless they have been preserved in ice like the mammoths (thinking of dodos and tasmanian tigers, stuff like that)

If they could bring them back, it would certainly be a hugely innovative way of endangered species protection. If a species becomes extinct, they can be brought back and repopulated, or simply cloned to increase numbers to prevent extinction in the first place.



#11
CamGoldenGun

CamGoldenGun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationFort McMurray, AB. Canada.

Even if we don't bring them back today because we're still busy destroying ecosystems, we should keep their genome on record and insert them into places like the seed banks so when we are finally ready to turn another page we can insert them back into the wild.



#12
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
Should we bring back species that went extinct less that 500 years ago? Wherever possible. Should we bring back species from more than that? Only if they won't harm the species and ecosystems already there. Should we bring back species from more than 10,000 years ago? Only in zoos. They would cause massive damage to the environment should they be released into the wild. Just my opinion.

Edited by CLB, 22 March 2013 - 10:53 PM.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#13
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,991 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

I actually find myself wondering about de-extinct mammoths and whether they might be a good source of meat, leather, and wool for textiles and felting. The bones and ivory too could be used. I think my only question is if they would be resource heavy to grow to full size?

 

But many large birds, and reptiles and fish, would make good choices. Eggs, feathers, skins, bone, beak, horn, venoms, meat ect.

 

I could also see some exotic mounts for riding rocky terrain or deserts.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#14
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
Quote: I actually find myself wondering about de-extinct mammoths and whether they might be a good source of meat, leather, and wool for textiles and felting. The bones and ivory too could be used. I think my only question is if they would be resource heavy to grow to full size? But many large birds, and reptiles and fish, would make good choices. Eggs, feathers, skins, bone, beak, horn, venoms, meat ect. I could also see some exotic mounts for riding rocky terrain or deserts. (End quote) I doubt farming mammoths is more efficient than farming cattle. Though I can see an industry for hunting exotic creatures, repulsive as I find that.

Edited by CLB, 23 March 2013 - 06:16 PM.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#15
midnightr

midnightr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but no I don't believe it's a good idea at all. Animals go extinct for a reason, and introducing any new species would have a detrimental affect on present ecosystems. There's a reason countries have such strict laws regarding animal transportation. Just look at the devastating consequences of introducing rabbits into the Australian ecosystem, here's a quick excerpt from Wiki:

 

"Since their introduction from Europe in the 19th century, the effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating. They are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The loss of plant species is unknown at this time. Rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests and on properties by Ringbarking them.

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems, as they eat native plants, leaving the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land, as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate."

 

The food chain is a balanced system, and any change in one part of it has a knock on effect down the line. Just think of it like the butterfly effect if you will. It's impossible to reintroduce new species with it having no effect on the food chain. 

 

With regards to Zoos however, sure you could, but I've always just seen Zoos as a cruel waste of time. The animals would be far more happy in the wild where they should be. Plus you can't be sure that leakage won't occur somewhere, unless it's extremely tightly controlled. 


Edited by midnightr, 25 March 2013 - 09:11 PM.


#16
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
@midnightr (quote won't work for me) Many species are going extinct as a direct result of human interference (poaching etc.). Do you not think that we should reintroduce those species? Also, your point on the rabbits was largely irrelevant as the only species released into the wild would be ones that were there before. Animals such as mammoths would be kept in labs and not released. All that said, you definitely have a good point about carefully observing released animals.

Edited by CLB, 25 March 2013 - 11:53 PM.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#17
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 763 posts
  • LocationSlocan Park, BC

We've even found Dinosaur bone marrow for crying out loud!



#18
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas
Should we bring back species that went extinct less that 500 years ago? Wherever possible.

Should we bring back species from more than that? Only if they won't harm the species and ecosystems already there.

Should we bring back species from more than 10,000 years ago? Only in zoos. They would cause massive damage to the environment should they be released into the wild.


Just my opinion.

Well its just that.  Opinion.  I guess this too, is just opinion, but we don't know what the effects would be.
  I doubt that bringing back certain bird species and other small animals such as the dodo or Tasmanian tiger would do any serious damage to the ecosystem.

 

Bringing back dinosaurs is another story.  They would either die fast in our environment or dominate it.  Wooly mammoths... they probably wouldn't do much harm. 

 

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but no I don't believe it's a good idea at all. Animals go extinct for a reason, and introducing any new species would have a detrimental affect on present ecosystems. There's a reason countries have such strict laws regarding animal transportation. Just look at the devastating consequences of introducing rabbits into the Australian ecosystem, here's a quick excerpt from Wiki:

 

"Since their introduction from Europe in the 19th century, the effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating. They are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The loss of plant species is unknown at this time. Rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests and on properties by Ringbarking them.

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems, as they eat native plants, leaving the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land, as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate."

 

The food chain is a balanced system, and any change in one part of it has a knock on effect down the line. Just think of it like the butterfly effect if you will. It's impossible to reintroduce new species with it having no effect on the food chain. 

 

With regards to Zoos however, sure you could, but I've always just seen Zoos as a cruel waste of time. The animals would be far more happy in the wild where they should be. Plus you can't be sure that leakage won't occur somewhere, unless it's extremely tightly controlled. 

Not every species died off for a "reason", I assume you mean natural selection based on survival of the fittest.  When mass extinction events happened in the past such as meteor strikes and super volcanoes those animals were at no fault for dying off.  When mankind hunts and kills every last of one species it is also not the species fault for going extinct.

 

Those types of animals would probably do very little damage to the environment; in fact they would probably improve it.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#19
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
I was thinking of larger, more dangerous species such as dinosaurs. I doubt that most species would do much damage to the environment, but that doesn't mean that we should reintroduce them. The environment is too fragile to experiment with. That said, it is hard to imagine a species doing more damage to the environment than humans.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#20
midnightr

midnightr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
Should we bring back species that went extinct less that 500 years ago? Wherever possible.

Should we bring back species from more than that? Only if they won't harm the species and ecosystems already there.

Should we bring back species from more than 10,000 years ago? Only in zoos. They would cause massive damage to the environment should they be released into the wild.


Just my opinion.

Well its just that.  Opinion.  I guess this too, is just opinion, but we don't know what the effects would be.
  I doubt that bringing back certain bird species and other small animals such as the dodo or Tasmanian tiger would do any serious damage to the ecosystem.

 

Bringing back dinosaurs is another story.  They would either die fast in our environment or dominate it.  Wooly mammoths... they probably wouldn't do much harm. 

 

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but no I don't believe it's a good idea at all. Animals go extinct for a reason, and introducing any new species would have a detrimental affect on present ecosystems. There's a reason countries have such strict laws regarding animal transportation. Just look at the devastating consequences of introducing rabbits into the Australian ecosystem, here's a quick excerpt from Wiki:

 

"Since their introduction from Europe in the 19th century, the effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating. They are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The loss of plant species is unknown at this time. Rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests and on properties by Ringbarking them.

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems, as they eat native plants, leaving the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land, as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate."

 

The food chain is a balanced system, and any change in one part of it has a knock on effect down the line. Just think of it like the butterfly effect if you will. It's impossible to reintroduce new species with it having no effect on the food chain. 

 

With regards to Zoos however, sure you could, but I've always just seen Zoos as a cruel waste of time. The animals would be far more happy in the wild where they should be. Plus you can't be sure that leakage won't occur somewhere, unless it's extremely tightly controlled. 

Not every species died off for a "reason", I assume you mean natural selection based on survival of the fittest.  When mass extinction events happened in the past such as meteor strikes and super volcanoes those animals were at no fault for dying off.  When mankind hunts and kills every last of one species it is also not the species fault for going extinct.

 

Those types of animals would probably do very little damage to the environment; in fact they would probably improve it.

 

 

 

Regardless of how or why certain species become extinct, when they're removed the environment changes forever. Introducing any new species is going to have a knock-on effect on the food chain, and other animals will either decrease or increase in numbers, as well as certain vegetation. As in my example, you wouldn't think cuddly rabbits do much damage, after all they just eat some greens & hop around, not so true as I pointed out. 

 

@midnightr (quote won't work for me)

Many species are going extinct as a direct result of human interference (poaching etc.). Do you not think that we should reintroduce those species?

Also, your point on the rabbits was largely irrelevant as the only species released into the wild would be ones that were there before. Animals such as mammoths would be kept in labs and not released.

All that said, you definitely have a good point about carefully observing released animals.

 

No, or if you do you'd need to be damn sure of the consequences. As above, once a species is removed the system adapts itself. Whether an animal was once alive in a certain place doesn't matter, it doesn't belong there any more. I'm sure it's possible, but you'd need to spend a long time exploring the possible side effects on the ecosystem. Introducing a species back into it's environment could have detrimental affects on other wildlife (even so detrimental as to risk extinction). 

 

You could keep them in secure labs. You couldn't put them in zoos, since they're too insecure with too much access. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users