Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't support the idea for various reasons. First, there is a reason they went extinct. For most, it was because the environment could no longer support them in some way. Mammoths, for example could only survive in an environment which included both abundant food and cold enough temperatures along with low enough humidity for their fur to not be detrimental. This means loess steppes. Since we don't currently have loess steppes around the world (glaciers are required for loess steppes to exist, and we seem to be short of those right now) we would be resurrecting a species which could not possibly survive.
That is, of course, assuming that man didn't hunt the mammoth to extinction. Some tribes of American Indians had legends of hunting mammoths in recent times when the Europeans arrived.
Second, even if environment were not the issue, and the resurrected species were viable, we have enough species currently living that bringing back another which may be a food chain competitor seems counterproductive. Can you imagine turning a pack of sabre-tooth tigers loose in the Serengeti? The damage such placement could do to the food chain is astronomical.
Third, I've seen Jurassic Park. Not to spoil it for anyone, but resurrecting species was the entire plot device. It went badly.
Let sleeping dogs lie. Save what's left.
Anyone who resurrects an extinct animal would not be doing it for humanitarian reasons. They'd be doing it for profit or military advantage.
They would do it to demonstrate their mastery of the science and technology involved, to gain knowledge about the development of life on Earth, and simply because it would be interesting to see what extinct species are like.
I wouldn't support the idea for various reasons. First, there is a reason they went extinct. For most, it was because the environment could no longer support them in some way. Mammoths, for example could only survive in an environment which included both abundant food and cold enough temperatures for their fur to not be detrimental. This means loess steppes. Since we don't currently have loess steppes around the world (glaciers are required for loess steppes to exist, and we seem to be short of those right now) we would be resurrecting a species which could not possibly survive.The
That is, of course, assuming that man didn't hunt the mammoth to extinction. Some tribes of American Indians had legends of hunting mammoths in recent times when the Europeans arrived.
Second, even if environment were not the issue, and the resurrected species were viable, we have enough species currently living that bringing back another which may be a food chain competitor seems counterproductive. Can you imagine turning a pack of sabre-tooth tigers loose in the Serengeti? The damage such placement could do to the food chain is astronomical.
Reintroducing a population of extinct animals into the wild is another question entirely.
Quote:
Third, I've seen Jurassic Park. Not to spoil it for anyone, but resurrecting species was the entire plot device. It went badly.
Eh... you realize that wasn't a documentary, don't you?
Reintroducing a population of extinct animals into the wild is another question entirely.
Eh... you realize that wasn't a documentary, don't you?
I never thought Idiocracy was a documentary before 2016, either, but then the election happened.
(I know, I know, but now we belong in the politics forum )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.