De-extinction

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-scientist-trying-to-reverse-extinctions-think-jurassic-park/

 

Should we do it? My stance is that we should reverse the extinction of animals the humans have driven to extinction atleast. 

[Aix]

Hmmm, to be honest, I never got the practical point of conservation. Certain things definitely need to be preserved, the forests, the phytoplankton populations, etc. However, who really needs Tasmanian tigers?

 

It could be certainly good to be able to engineer more biodiversity into ecosystems though. For that sake, and for the sake of pure scientific pursuit, I would support this. There are worse things we could be putting our money into.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hmmm, to be honest, I never got the practical point of conservation. Certain things definitely need to be preserved, the forests, the phytoplankton populations, etc. However, who really needs Tasmanian tigers?

 

It could be certainly good to be able to engineer more biodiversity into ecosystems though. For that sake, and for the sake of pure scientific pursuit, I would support this. There are worse things we could be putting our money into.

I mean if we look at the baiji. That's literally all on use we drove it to death, and it's our duty to the planet to undo our ancestor's recklessness. The biodiversity is the main appeal I think

[Aix]

Duty to the planet?

 

[spoiler=What Mother Nature has to say about this.]

 

[shadowsapex]

At less than 1000 breeding individuals, a species is basically on life support. Less than 100, it probably won't survive. Can we really clone than many specimens with diverse DNA? And if we do, wouldn't it take an unacceptable amount of money? We could spend the money on better things. Like adopting a renewable energy source and ending global warming so our entire global ecosystem doesn't crash and millions of species don't die.

[vla1ne]

well, it would at least be interesting to attempt. as already stated, it could definitely increase diversity in currently existing, compatible species. past that though, it's probably a waste of money.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

At less than 1000 breeding individuals, a species is basically on life support. Less than 100, it probably won't survive. Can we really clone than many specimens with diverse DNA? And if we do, wouldn't it take an unacceptable amount of money? We could spend the money on better things. Like adopting a renewable energy source and ending global warming so our entire global ecosystem doesn't crash and millions of species don't die.

500? Probs if the government is involve it could be pretty easily done

[Maeriberii Haan]

It's honestly going to be a good thing in the long run to be able to do this. The scientific benefit is pretty clear, but it's one of those researches that would show its importance later on.

 

Whether we should go all the way with this right now is something to be debated (imo it's not really necessary for now), but making sure that it's actually doable and would go off without a hitch is what should be prioritized.

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

The idea is indeed interesting, but realization will take years and a huge a mount of money, and isn't 100% guaranteed, but if this succeeded, then earth will regain it's lost treasures, like the Ammonite, Trilobite, etc.....

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

earth will regain it's lost treasures, like the Ammonite, Trilobite, etc.....

No, it won't. That is impossible, as is doing the same with dinosaurs.

 

That said, things like this aren't unlikely at all for species such as the passenger pigeon.

 

Hmmm, to be honest, I never got the practical point of conservation.

Pipe dreams aside, extinction cannot be undone. Completely and irreversibly removing a species from the planet, with no real benefit to ourselves is something most people would recognize as morally wrong.

 

(Also, the thylocine filled an important niche as a predator in Tasmania, equating closely to wolves in North America)

 

EDIT: oops, thought the posts would merge

[shadowsapex]

500? Probs if the government is involve it could be pretty easily done

I really don't think it would be that easy. You'd need a diverse gene pool, and we don't have that many samples of DNA, so we'd basically have to take whatever samples we get and sorta randomize the genes for each creature. I don't know if we can do that, and if we could, it'd take forever.

Maybe a small number of clones for zoos, but not full-on recreating the species.

 

Edit: What are the reps for, the zoo idea or the DNA randomization idea?

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

This might be our best bet to prevent extinction to our natural treasures, like the Rafflesia arnoldii, for a wider biodiversity

The DNA sampling process, It requires patience and diligence, like Thomas Alva Edison......but there may be hope

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I really don't think it would be that easy. You'd need a diverse gene pool, and we don't have that many samples of DNA, so we'd basically have to take whatever samples we get and sorta randomize the genes for each creature. I don't know if we can do that, and if we could, it'd take forever.

Maybe a small number of clones for zoos, but not full-on recreating the species.

 

Edit: What are the reps for, the zoo idea or the DNA randomization idea?

DNA randomization, also the open mind I guess

[VCR_CAT]

I heard somewhere that there was a species of banana that was like, the primary banana to eat. The banana of banana's. Not too long ago it was wiped out by a disease and that sucks. We still got bananas, but I've also heard they're not as good.

 

So, y'know, if that's the case I wouldn't mind bringing back Better Bananas.

 

But, otherwise, this is a fickle thing. There are some species that can be brought back it might have a beneficial effect on the environment for preserving ecosystems. Other ideas, such as Megalodons or Mammoths, probably won't go over very well.

[Blake]

I heard somewhere that there was a species of banana that was like, the primary banana to eat. The banana of banana's. Not too long ago it was wiped out by a disease and that sucks. We still got bananas, but I've also heard they're not as good.

 

So, y'know, if that's the case I wouldn't mind bringing back Better Bananas.

 

But, otherwise, this is a fickle thing. There are some species that can be brought back it might have a beneficial effect on the environment for preserving ecosystems. Other ideas, such as Megalodons or Mammoths, probably won't go over very well.

Yeah, happened in the 70s(?) iirc.

 

When you taste banana flavored candy, its flavor is based on said better banana. Take that as you will, considering no candy is totally accurate, but yeah.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I heard somewhere that there was a species of banana that was like, the primary banana to eat. The banana of banana's. Not too long ago it was wiped out by a disease and that sucks. We still got bananas, but I've also heard they're not as good.

 

So, y'know, if that's the case I wouldn't mind bringing back Better Bananas.

 

But, otherwise, this is a fickle thing. There are some species that can be brought back it might have a beneficial effect on the environment for preserving ecosystems. Other ideas, such as Megalodons or Mammoths, probably won't go over very well.

What do you have against mammoths in Siberia

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Bananas are extinct. All bananas you have eaten are clones, since the surviving variety was the seedless one. Real bananas were far less sweet, and honestly didn't taste as good as modern bananas from what I have heard.

What do you have against mammoths in Siberia

their extinction was totally fair and devoting resources to bringing them back is just a waste.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't know, maybe bringing them back now isn't the smartest, but the LEAST we could do at the moment is atleast harvest all the DNA so we CAN do it in the future

[Delibirb]

I vote more focus on building the next lifeforms: artificial super intelligence. But that's coming from a pseudo transhumanist.

 

Anyway, it's a neat trick to be able to restore crippled species and ecosystems, but when we look at the big picture and try to help the things cohabitating earth with us, we kinda ignore the cosmic picture: nature is all about changing ecosystems, even destroying them. Just because it's the first time it's happening on this planet due to the actions of living things rather than natural disaster does not make it any less natural or acceptable. We can bring back populations, for sure, but it's entirely possible, likely, and inevitable they will die out again, because we changed their ecosystem. At the very least they will need constant attention to keep them in a safe numerical range.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I vote more focus on building the next lifeforms: artificial super intelligence. But that's coming from a pseudo transhumanist.

 

Anyway, it's a neat trick to be able to restore crippled species and ecosystems, but when we look at the big picture and try to help the things cohabitating earth with us, we kinda ignore the cosmic picture: nature is all about changing ecosystems, even destroying them. Just because it's the first time it's happening on this planet due to the actions of living things rather than natural disaster does not make it any less natural or acceptable. We can bring back populations, for sure, but it's entirely possible, likely, and inevitable they will die out again, because we changed their ecosystem. At the very least they will need constant attention to keep them in a safe numerical range.

Problem is, it's a closing window if we ever want the opportunity to even consider doing so

[vla1ne]

well on the bright side, if they succeed in this, we won't have to be as upset if a child jumps into an endangered animals' cage.

[Delibirb]

Problem is, it's a closing window if we ever want the opportunity to even consider doing so

My point is why would we want to consider doing so? It's counterproductive to natural order and isn't gonna help us build our new robot overlords.

[vla1ne]

My point is why would we want to consider doing so? It's counterproductive to natural order and isn't gonna help us build our new robot overlords.

actually, if the goal is to allow nature to carry on as it has been, then animals that are currently endangered who play a vital role in the current balance (like bees) would have something to fall back on. and terraforming on mars using natural life would be a little more viable as well. it wouldn't be perfect, but bringing things back from extinction could have quite a few practical applications.

[Delibirb]

actually, if the goal is to allow nature to carry on as it has been, then animals that are currently endangered who play a vital role in the current balance (like bees) would have something to fall back on. and terraforming on mars using natural life would be a little more viable as well. it wouldn't be perfect, but bringing things back from extinction could have quite a few practical applications.

I believe you may have missed the point in my first post. Bringing nature back to how it was is not really how nature works. It's all about letting things that were previously important to ecosystems die out, generally for new ecosystems go form. If there's a practical application to revitalizing species then that is different, but doing so solely to reintroduce them into the wild because we feel bad isn't really helping anything, because the whole point of nature is change.

[vla1ne]

I believe you may have missed the point in my first post. Bringing nature back to how it was is not really how nature works. It's all about letting things that were previously important to ecosystems die out, generally for new ecosystems go form. If there's a practical application to revitalizing species then that is different, but doing so solely to reintroduce them into the wild because we feel bad isn't really helping anything, because the whole point of nature is change.

it's not about "we feel bad" it's about "if this species dies off we ourselves will have problems down the line." we use bees (among other animals/plants) for a ton of things, having them die out, for any reason would be harmful to us. same goes for other species. having the tech on hand, properly developed will make creation of artificial ecosystems easier, and we'll benefit from it by having one more ability on hand when humanity ventures into space.not to mention there's not real reason to not do it, even if the purpose was to introduce dead animals, there's nothing actually wrong with that either. animals and plants that have gone extinct might possess traits that could help humanity as a whole, not bringing them back when we know how would be akin to not looking in the top drawer to the left for your keys. you might not find what you're looking for, but it doesn't hurt to check.