|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 25, 2013 16:50:56 GMT
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 26, 2013 13:42:04 GMT
why arent intelligent humans on the list
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 26, 2013 15:01:57 GMT
What I'm curious about is, if it's possible to do this with completely extinct species...
would it be possible to do so with endangered ones?
cause a nice population boom for threatened species,
|
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Mar 27, 2013 18:30:01 GMT
Who cares if an animal goes extinct
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 28, 2013 3:38:31 GMT
I do.
Particularly when it is the fault of humans fucking things up like how they like to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck you Steve on Mar 28, 2013 12:03:17 GMT
The wild thing about this is that de-extinction is actually a tangible goal now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Mar 28, 2013 18:09:58 GMT
^Hence the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 28, 2013 20:02:47 GMT
It certainly makes me wonder of other possibilities.
Like I've stated before about boosting endangered species through cloning or some other sort of program.
or hybridisation, chimera research, etc.
it's an incredibly fascinating proposition.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Mar 29, 2013 0:34:43 GMT
am i the only one who doesnt understand this 'are we playing god' question?
we are god in relation to other, inferior, animals. if you have the possibility of being a god, you are a god.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck you Steve on Mar 29, 2013 13:08:29 GMT
If people ever manage to clone a mammoth, I will cry out of pure joy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 29, 2013 15:31:33 GMT
am i the only one who doesnt understand this 'are we playing god' question? we are god in relation to other, inferior, animals. if you have the possibility of being a god, you are a god. I don't agree with the notion, but I understand why it is brought up. Human meddling with natural forces can cause unexpected devastating consequences. If it's a matter of morality or ethics, that's a more personal thing, I think. I think it's rooted in fears of tampering with natural forces, as well as opening up new doors to many previously unexplored issues that challenge the status quo. Personally, as long as the science is sound enough for more good than harm, and very little error, I say 'go for it'. Human cloning, gene-splicing, bio/genetic engineering, etc etc. S'all good IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck you Steve on Mar 29, 2013 17:24:46 GMT
There also needs to be a reason for bringing back a said species. If we were able to bring back an apatosaurus, where would we put it? It would just be put in a zoo to be looked at. But if we decide to bring back the passenger pigeon or woolly mammoth, their natural habitat is still there. Then they can get back to doing what they were doing before they went extinct,
|
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Mar 30, 2013 0:09:08 GMT
What a marvelous idea resurrect animals that died out because they could not survive in the current state their environment. Species die out for a reason, and there really is no reason to bring any back.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Mar 30, 2013 1:55:59 GMT
There's some for novelty.
But others were wiped out by human carelessness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Mar 30, 2013 20:00:14 GMT
Human carelessness is still a reason to go extinct considering we are constantly changing environments. If species cannot handle the changes then they will disappear, but new one will take their place.
Don't get me wrong I understand it is a terrible thing that humans destroy these creatures. However, I understand that it will most likely never change, so it is best to leave the dead as dead.
|
|
