HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Sciences (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=245)
-   -   Should We Bring Extinct Species Back to Life? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1375105)

LadyStanley 03-13-2013 03:28 PM

Should We Bring Extinct Species Back to Life?
 


Nat Geo asks the question should we play God and bring back extinct species?

Starbuds 03-14-2013 01:34 PM

We created "God." Why not create life?

AfroThunder396 03-14-2013 04:08 PM

It's a slippery slope. To bring back something like the thylacine or Ivory-billed Woodpecker and re-introduce them into the ecosystem, I wouldn't object to on any scientific grounds.

However, it would be an enormous undertaking though, billions of dollars and at least a decade to put in motion, and that's a lot of money to spend on something you're not even sure will be successful in the long-term. Who's to say they'll actually breed in the wild? Maybe they need to acquire some learned behavior.

In 30 years this will probably more feasible but I can't really justify it at the moment.

octopi 03-14-2013 05:08 PM

Where's my elephant wooly mammoth?


I say bring it back if it's similar to something already living. Or it's a dinosaur.

CanadianHockey 03-14-2013 05:11 PM

Difficult to determine which species ought to be brought back.

There should be an era requirement. Otherwise we'd probably bring back creatures with no natural predators and no ability to cope with modern climates and ecosystems.
Should also try to only bring back species that died out because of human activity. This raises the question, how do we determine which species were even eliminated by human activity in the first place?

etc
etc

Telos 03-14-2013 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 (Post 61648857)
It's a slippery slope. To bring back something like the thylacine or Ivory-billed Woodpecker and re-introduce them into the ecosystem, I wouldn't object to on any scientific grounds.

However, it would be an enormous undertaking though, billions of dollars and at least a decade to put in motion, and that's a lot of money to spend on something you're not even sure will be successful in the long-term. Who's to say they'll actually breed in the wild? Maybe they need to acquire some learned behavior.

In 30 years this will probably more feasible but I can't really justify it at the moment.

Hah. I came here to suggest the thylacine as a good start point. A creature that is pretty much within a century since extinction, and we still have specimens in jars and very recent skeletons.

I think the experiments would be useful and could leave to some breakthroughs in genetics.

Re-creating an extinct species is on the same level as landing on the moon. It would be one of the single greatest achievements in the entire fields of biology and chemistry.

At first, it would have to be a carefully controlled habitat, like that of a thylacine. Obviously, we can't model or comprehend yet the ramifications of re-inventing a species like say, the most famous example of all, the dinosaurs, which would be introducing a new pinnacle predator to the planet.

No matter what, we will be altering the system and habitats of these creatures. If we re-vive the thylacine, then all creatures that have thrived since would be affected. But it is also inevitable that as our capability enhances, there will sooner or later be nothing on this planet that doesn't have our fingerprints on it. Going to have to learn sooner or later.

Beef Invictus 03-14-2013 05:57 PM

Start with something lazy and pointless, like Dodo birds. Those things aren't likely to go all Jurassic Park on anything.

Telos 03-14-2013 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beef Invictus (Post 61653425)
Start with something lazy and pointless, like Dodo birds. Those things aren't likely to go all Jurassic Park on anything.

That's what you think! Oh, God! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?! Run for your lives!

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/20...o_by_Ramul.jpg

Ether Prodigy 03-14-2013 09:32 PM

Yeah sure, lets do it if it's possible.

Eisen 03-14-2013 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starbuds (Post 61641149)
We created "God." Why not create life?

Best answer.
And we killed species, why not bring them back? Unless it brings the creature pain.

Richer's Ghost 03-15-2013 08:28 AM

Not if it was gone prior to say the "modern man". It died or was killed off naturally, let's not bring back what we didn't kill. Let the same process that got us here keep on it's own path.

WarriorOfGandhi 03-15-2013 10:09 AM

I call it "Billy and the Cloneasaurus"

Ether Prodigy 03-15-2013 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richer's Ghost (Post 61701731)
Not if it was gone prior to say the "modern man". It died or was killed off naturally, let's not bring back what we didn't kill. Let the same process that got us here keep on it's own path.

I wouldn't say bring them back to life and then have them introduced into the habitat... but why not clone a dino if we can... kill it and then dissect it.

PeteWorrell 03-16-2013 03:36 PM

I don't think so.Nothing last forever and there are usually good reasons why certain species like the Dodo went extinct.

Richer's Ghost 03-18-2013 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peon (Post 61734305)
I wouldn't say bring them back to life and then have them introduced into the habitat... but why not clone a dino if we can... kill it and then dissect it.

well, I could get behind that concept I guess - maybe one gets loose and destroys PETA headquarters. :sarcasm:

TooHotToTrotz 03-18-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Clark (Post 61775797)
I don't think so.Nothing last forever and there are usually good reasons why certain species like the Dodo went extinct.

? Humans and invasive species were the driving force for the Dodo to go extinct if I remember correctly?

Granted, they were flightless, but that was because they didn't require flight. Only thing they'd ever have to fly away from was us.

Not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see how human induced extinction is a "good reason".

PeteWorrell 03-20-2013 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes (Post 61893887)
? Humans and invasive species were the driving force for the Dodo to go extinct if I remember correctly?

Granted, they were flightless, but that was because they didn't require flight. Only thing they'd ever have to fly away from was us.

Not trying to be a jerk, I just don't see how human induced extinction is a "good reason".

I don't know if a species vulnerable to the point of being weak to any type of "invaders" like cats and dogs was really meant to survive in our world.They were big, flightless and nested on the ground so they had no way of fighting back and their nests were totally vulnerable.The only way they would have survived in the wild is if the island was blocked from anything and everything that could pray on them or their nests.

HighAndTight 03-20-2013 02:14 PM

Agree that it should only be concering species that were lost as a result of human contact. We shouldn't be bringing back anything that was killed off naturally.

Though that begs the question, if we weren't directly responsible for the creature no longer exsisting, would we then have to look at if we're responsible for putting into motion something that caused another species to finish another off?

PeteWorrell 03-20-2013 02:25 PM

An event that is happening right now and is directly caused by humans is the invasion of Burmese Pythons in Florida.They are a dominant apex predator in the region with nothing hunting them except when humans do it for sport.

http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/20...e-pythons.html

beowulf 03-20-2013 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Clark (Post 62042397)
An event that is happening right now and is directly caused by humans is the invasion of Burmese Pythons in Florida.They are a dominant apex predator in the region with nothing hunting them except when humans do it for sport.

http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/20...e-pythons.html

Sooo this has to do with bringing back extinct species how exactly?

ryanwb 03-20-2013 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telos (Post 61651673)
Going to have to learn sooner or later.

While I would tend to agree with this sentiment, I think we have to draw a line here. Bringing back an extinct species? How do we realistically do something like that when we cannot even curb our own species' habits and destructive behavior to save the species that are currently endangered or at risk?

I say we should be more worried about integrating human civilization into the natural world without so many adverse effects before we start worry about bringing things back from the dead.

sabresfan129103 03-21-2013 12:59 AM

I thought a read fairly recently that the half life of DNA isn't that long, so at this point it would be impossible to clone any species that has been extinct for an extended period of time.

I found the article. http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555

x Tame Impala 03-21-2013 09:58 AM

I think we should focus on the dozens and dozens of endangered species that we currently can't efficiently control before we bring back Sabre-Tooths and Mammoths

Dado 03-23-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 61587227)
Nat Geo asks the question should we play God and bring back extinct species?

That's like asking if we should prevent nature from creating new species.

MarkGio 03-30-2013 01:39 AM

What's the point? We can't even protect our current species!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.