In other words, extinction is natural...who are we to say that re-introducing a species won't do more harm than good, anyway?

There is no terrifying imbalance in the echo-system -- it adjusts to the comings and goings of things....it's amazing how well the earth and it's environment and species actually adapt *despite* man...

The question isn't about species that go extinct, it's about species that we drove to extinction.

Still, the answer is no. We can do much more productive things putting those resources into ensuring that the current absurd extinction rate, largely at the hands of humans, is slowed rather than worrying about skewing the evolutionary scale even further.

And NO....we are not clicking through to your thinkl disguised PORN LINK....you bastard...

"it's about species that we drove to extinction."

So what is *WE* "drove" them to extinction - whatever that means. It seems to me that plenty of creatures have managed to survive and thrive despite man...so these pitiful creatures that we "drove" to extinction...probably weren't that strong anyway, and don't "deserve" (in a biological sense) to be around...they would have found their way out of existence anyway.

Who is arrogant man to say "THIS...RIGHT HERE..." as he thumps his finger on a time line..."THIS is the day that we should mark, and NO CHANGES to the Earth should take place after THIS DAY..."

Idiocy..

'We can do much more productive things putting those resources into ensuring that the current absurd extinction rate' - as it happen, that is largely the same technology. In fact, it is an easier problem to solve, so we're likely to start here and go back to more extinct things later...

And you should see the elephant uterus in the video i linked... seriosuly

I really want to eat a mammoth burger.

' It seems to me that plenty of creatures have managed to survive and thrive despite man...'

have you ever bothered to count them? There are those who claim we're currently going through a 6th mass extinction - the one which 'wiped out the dinosaurs' (you know, except for all the birds which descended from dinosaurs) was the 5th in earth's history (to the best of my knowledge)

That is, there are currently more species going extinct than new species evolving... and part of that is complex systems collapsing and loss of biodiversity.

Also i suspect that there is something to be said for 'stewards of the earth' or protecting bio-diversity (depending on whether you wish to take a christian or scientific take on it)

I am largely in agreement with krellin. We have no moral duty to bring back animals for which haminity was a factor of their extinction. Creatures have been causing the extinction of others throughout history. It is an entirely natural process, although some species have a more dramatic impact than others.

Besides which it is impossible to know which species we have made extinct.

More importantly I strongly suspect that it is impossible. Whilst I dare say we could bring back a creature or two, given enough trial and error, the (for want of a better word) culture of the creature will have been lost. There will be no mother to teach the new animal how it should behave, or hunting skills, or how to find food. We too often underestimate the importance of learning and collective knowledge amongst lesser species.

A moral duty? Almost certainly no. I can't watch videos at the moment so sorry if I miss the thrust of the linked Youtube video.

We definitely don't have a moral duty to bring back, say trilobites or some other animals that's been extinct for a huge length of time and man had not hand in exterminating.

But what about, say, Steller's sea cow, which was unambiguously our fault and only happened less than three hundred years ago? If we are able to bring back a species and place it in the environment it evolved to be in, are we obligated to do so?

Personally, I'd say doing so may well be a worthwhile scientific project, but not a moral duty. For one, how do we pick which to bring back, and how do we rank their importance? Is it just ease? Or ecological significance? Maybe something else? Say the black rat finally loses its fight against the brown rat and goes extinct. Do we need to resurrect it? Why? Does this line of thought preclude us from exterminating the species of mosquitoes that carry malaria?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the first in line to see a mammoth if one were cloned. I just don't think this issue enters the realm of morality, and if it does, it's raises a host of new, difficult problems.

"There are those who claim we're currently going through a 6th mass extinction"

a **6th*** mass extinction. Yes....thanks for making my point. Creatures come and go regardless of man's influence.

And, the way our moronic biologists operate, if you have a flock of 100 birds (all offspring from the same constant flock) and one suddenly has a slightly different hue to it's feathers, you suddenly have a new protected species. Uhhhh sorry...I just don't care that much if that slightly-different hued bird dies and can't pass on its slightly-different-hued feathers gene....because another deviation will come along eventually...

For the mass extinciton, I find it hilarious that multiple times per year we can find article about brand new species...or thousands of new species...suddenly discovered...

If the arrogant humans knew half of what they think we know we'd still be morons compared to the scope of what we don't know.

I'm not advocating for killing species off -- don't get me wrong, I get and believe in stewardship....but bringing back species? Or putting construction on hold because of a spider found in the weeds that has a slightly different pattern of camouflage than the normal spiders and suddenly this spider and it's habitat are protected? ...that's stupid shit.

Alternate view - man IS a part of the environment, and we kill. We are top of the food chain, are we not? You don't want us to kill you? Adapt and survive. :P


"That is, there are currently more species going extinct than new species evolving"
PROVE THIS

Perhaps we should round up *all* the wild creatures and put every single last one of them in a zoo so *they* will stop killing each other....damn rotten bloody murderers, the whole lot of the wild kingdom.

As the superior species, we must use our power and influence over animals to stop them from harming themselves.

ALL ANIMALS should be locked up for their own good.

*OR*....the plagues of disease that we have eradicated? We need to take them out of cold storage and release them back in to the wild.

It's assinine to say we are going to pick and choose what to save, what to revive....it's time to release all the deadly diseases we have contained and conquered...because they are life, they deserve their freedom...who knows which deadly disease released in to the wild might cause the mutation and evolution of man!

Do we have an obligation? No. Should we do it anyway? Fuck yeah! Bring on the dinosaurs, bitches!

Really, though, I would love to see the passenger pigeon brought back.

It's not right to bring back dinosaurs, Draugnar. They'd be absurdly ill adapted to the world today. I mean hell, they're older than flowers. Flowers! Jurassic Park would be cool, but only in the most self-serving way possible.

I think that's the child talking in him, Invictus.

If we were to bring something back the options are certainly limited to those that aren't a potential threat to humans and don't take up much space - I'd guess a bird of some kind. Still that's largely impossible and highly unlikely let alone unnecessary.

"he options are certainly limited to those that aren't a potential threat to humans and don't take up much space"

What are you basing that on, especially the space part?

Logic. Unless you want to give up your backyard for this project.

Anything goes in a laboratory or a zoo or whatever. I'm referring to something brought back and placed in the wild again.

Why would size matter? You can't just say logic and be done with it. Why is, say, an aurochs out of the question but an extinct kind of weasel or some other small animal not?

We already kind of encourage wolves and other animals potentially dangerous to humans to return to former habitats. If we make the jump to reintroduce resurrected species why should a different standard apply?

Take up much space as in how much space they take to live, not how big they are. Between something that migrates 100 miles every year versus something that lives in a tree and stays in a tree, the latter will, if based only on that fact, win out.

Danger can be judged on a number of things. I probably didn't make that clear. Whether it can take a human life is, in this context, only part of the equation. You can throw in destruction of property, damage to the rest of the ecosystem, damage to the local economy, etc.

I was joking about the dinos, dude. That's why I posted the *actual* bird that I would like to see brought back from extinction: the passenger pigeon.

I can't tell if box_sox48's position makes sense or is his usual arbitrariness and lazy thinking.

Draugnar, if you have to pick a bird you gotta pick the Carolina parakeet. Get your head out of your ass, buddy.

I'm partial to the passenger pigeon becuse the last one passed away here in Cincinnati and is interned at the Cincinnati Zoo. But the Carolina Parakeet would be #2 on my list. There are a lot of bird species lost in the last 100 or so years we should bring back if we have the power.

We get it. You live in Cincinnati.

And we get (I guess) that you live in the Carolinas? Of course, Bosux lives in Indy but is a Bosux fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_birds

I just went and looked up the word "haminity" wasn't a typo by Octavious.

Haminity(n): Of a species or creature, the quality of being susceptible to becoming extinct.

Invictus, are you asking me to clarify or are you just throwing around insults like normal?

I would cautiously say yes that we should bring them back. The problem is that these species don't have natural predators anymore, and could be disruptive to the ecosystems to which they're reintroduced.

"a **6th*** mass extinction. Yes....thanks for making
my point. Creatures come and go regardless of
man's influence."

Yes, mass extinctions happen all the time (well 5-ish in 4 billion years) and the current one has humans as the prime cause.

As for dinos, we can only bring things back at an upper limit of some hundreds of thousands of year - dna breaks down over time, and while Mammoths, Aurochs, Passenger Pigeons, and Dodos are all reasonable to expect; or even probably Neanderthal man, Dinosaurs are just too long gone. (as discussed in more rigour in the video i linked)

You could equally ask whether we have a moral imperative to not cause these extinctions in the first place, and by extention, bring back what we can and find/make habitats for them.

Krellin seems to think that things die, and it's all natural, so there is no moral imperative to prevent someone from shooting him in the face, in front of his family and then raping the hole. It all natural because we're humans and humans are part of nature.

orathaic: And you're debating with krellin why? Just sing along: threadID=1062826.

Because, for some reason, i unmuted him...

www.scientificamerican.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=75294492-F403-D986-EEA8069DD472143D - good example of "And, the way our moronic biologists operate, if you
have a flock of 100 birds (all offspring from the
same constant flock) and one suddenly has a
slightly different hue to it's feathers, you suddenly
have a new protected species."

No wait, i mean, what happens in the real world...

Well, I guess it is disturbing to see someone say they are in agreement with krellin on anything.

krellin has actually been quite agreeable lately.

Gaaaah! Not again!