|
Post by Cyno on Mar 20, 2013 17:18:50 GMT -5
I want a dinosaur.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 20, 2013 17:46:37 GMT -5
I'm completely against this. What would the point be? The animals would only exist as a means of our amusement. Nothing like bringing back something that has little to no means to ever thrive again. It's a nice idea to think about, but let's be honest here, there's absolutely no benefit to bringing them back. The environment has moved on, there's absolutely no benefit to having a wooly mammoth or labrador duck reintroduced. Why not use that money as a means of helping other animals that are important to us that are having such a hard time right now? There's a ton of amphibians that are having it tough, as well as bats and bees...all important to our ecosystem. They can be studied. A living specimen is more valuable for science than a dead one any day of the week. I doubt that scientists think they could create whole populations of animals so long extinct. We can learn things about the past in order to predict the future. For instance, we're talking about ice age animals here. What could we possibly learn from observing animals who died out as the global climate warmed? Also, a lot of our medical breakthroughs come from products found in living plants and animals. If you can bring species back, you may be opening a lot of options for the advancement of medicine.
|
|
Eunös ✈
Dalek
Duck Feet Expert
Tolerated, just not practically liked.
Posts: 59,207
|
Post by Eunös ✈ on Mar 20, 2013 17:48:08 GMT -5
Can they try bringing Mythical Creatures to reality? I want my own Unicorn
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 20, 2013 21:38:11 GMT -5
They can be studied. A living specimen is more valuable for science than a dead one any day of the week. I doubt that scientists think they could create whole populations of animals so long extinct. We can learn things about the past in order to predict the future. For instance, we're talking about ice age animals here. What could we possibly learn from observing animals who died out as the global climate warmed? Unfortunately, that's not how science works. Unless we have embryos for these species, we will not get them. What we will get is animals that may look like them, but are in no way the same as the ones that died out. The reason why chose these animals is because there are animal genomes that are similar to those (using an elephant and just replacing part of the code...sound familiar?) we already have. Again, this creates the illusion we are getting something we are not. They're also trying to create a passenger pigeon out of a rock pigeon, because they have a similar genome. Back to your comment about studying animals in the name of medical research, well if the genomes are similar, then the likelihood that an extinct animal has some untapped cures is likely not the case. It just doesn't work like that, I'm afraid to say. But we're still getting the illusion of a wooly mammoth, right? Well, you still cannot code in behavior, traits or anything like that and since we have absolutely no clue what wooly mammoths were like, then you're still not getting the same animal. So it's not in the name of medical research, it's in the name of doing something just so we can pat ourselves on the back because we're so darn smart.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Mar 20, 2013 21:56:23 GMT -5
1. mastodon AND woolly mammoth?? Aren't they they exact same creature?
2. I think re-making these creatures is pointless. I honestly don't believe we'll get some huge universe altering secret by studying them, and we can't really try to "bring them back and put them in the wild" either. We have plenty of wild animals out there that are having an extremely hard time surviving: The Rhino, The Tiger, The Lion, The Koala, The Panda, The Gorilla, The African Elephant, ect. Trying to bring back the saber tooth and let them suffer out there, competing with all those others...plus man...is just dumb. We're running out of room, and, as much as it does bum me out, the extinct animals have to be left behind.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 20, 2013 22:00:58 GMT -5
1. mastodon AND woolly mammoth?? Aren't they they exact same creature? No. There's a ton of differences. The mammoth is slightly smaller than modern elephants, and the mastodon were much smaller and much less hairy. Like I said though, what they'll do is use an elephant as a surrogate, then use selective cloning to get it to the desired look. And unless we're going to market these animals as fashion pets, I don't see what other benefit it would have.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 20, 2013 23:49:26 GMT -5
If nothing else--just having one of those in a zoo/eventual movie rights would be enough to cover the cost of the project based on the novelty of it. It wouldn't be very useful, but it would probably be lucrative enough that no money was being wasted so long as they chose the right animal.
People who made this would make a profit and people who paid to see it would get entertainment--I mean seriously, you can tell me a sabertooth tiger thing isn't genetically the same thing as I dreamed about as a kid but I don't care. If were to look at something that looked like one, I'd be f***ing stocked and pay good money to see it in a zoo. The money that came from that could be used for good things(no idea if it would, really, but it's possible) and even unintentionally this would bring a lot of attention toward how humans can screw up some animals. Not that those animals are shining examples of it in comparison to the stuff we are doing right now, but the conversation would come about anyway.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 21, 2013 0:00:10 GMT -5
You have to remember though, cloning and genetic work, especially for larger animals is still quite difficult. The animals would most likely have a very short life, so if anything, going after something like the dodo is more practical, even if it's still dumb.
Personally, if they're going to work with anything, I would love for them to try to bring back extinct plants. That is something that is practical and somewhat less complicated to do. Hell, I just want a Bastard Gumwood tree.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 21, 2013 0:07:56 GMT -5
That's another point in favor of the deal though, isn't it? You don't get better at this type of thing without some practice. Something like this would be a step forward if only to get people thinking about the possibilities of the deal and that would be pretty good. There's a lot of good that could be done if our understanding of genetics improves even slightly.
Some stunt like this--if accomplished--could really get this type of genetic work the "facebook buzz" that something needs nowadays to, say, run a kickstarter for funding. It could get some good awareness and possibly funding going, which would be pretty good.
Extinct plants would be easier, but I doubt they could generate the same amount of publicity an extinct animal could. "Extinct plant brought back!" just packs less of a punch, people wouldn't care as much.
What I'm saying is, the animals themselves would be absolutely pointless--but cool enough that their sheer coolness would have value in the long run.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 21, 2013 0:19:01 GMT -5
It's going to be a slippery slope no matter how you put it, so it might generate buzz in the same way that something that would offend religious groups or something. I remember when Dolly was cloned, the whole world over wasn't cheering. I doubt this would be any different.
As far as genetic engineering goes, we're able to go this route without disrupting the world of extinct animals. Cloning dead DNA shouldn't be a problem, and that's not the problem here. It's the fact that you cannot bring an extinct animal back to life without the proper necessities, which is why all someone would have to do is call bullshit on the whole thing as soon as they did it. No, you don't have a dodo, you have a 12th generation pigeon that was molded like silly puddy to resemble a dodo. Sure it has the DNA, but at it's core, it's still another animal.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 21, 2013 0:28:31 GMT -5
The world is a different place now than when Dolly was cloned though. It's tough making the call, but in my meaningless opinion(I admit I have no way of knowing as I'm not an expert sociologist) I think the reaction would lean more toward the positive side of the deal.
What you are saying about the animal still being another animal is perfectly true, but I don't think that's how the world would see it. The media has the habit of using the most scandalous headline possible, I doubt they would bother to clarify when being willfully ignorant would generate more viewers/readers. The media would make a circus out of it and the attention could be good as far as obtaining funding and public interest go.
It is a fair point that it's really impossible to tell how people would react to it though. It could be overwhelmingly negative or overwhelmingly positive. And I swear I'm not joking when I say this, but the biggest difference between Dolly and an extinct animal would be that(and I know this will sound like a joke) the latter is really freaking cool. I have faith that people's morality would fall if confronted with something that was ridiculously cool looking.
Naturally, this throws out the dodo. Poor fearless bird.
Sure the extinct animal isn't really the extinct animal, but most people really won't care about that. I think the big thing is that I don't see this as disrupting the world of extinct animals, especially because of what you mentioned--it's not really the animal being brought back so much as a magic trick. And this magic trick might generate some positive interest in the whole thing...though yeah, I admit this could backfire. It's something that could benefit from some social research in that regard.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Mar 21, 2013 1:12:25 GMT -5
The world isn't that different at all. There's the same concerns as before, they don't disappear or diminish after just 15 years. There's been numerous statistics done over cloned meat and overwhelmingly, people have been against it. Granted, that's consuming cloned meat, but the point still stands, most people are still leery about the whole thing, and bringing back an extinct animal will almost certainly be polarizing in more ways than one. There's plenty of research on the matter, and it's something that raises interest, but can definitely lead a lot to being upset.
I'm sure the headlines would trick everyone into believing we had something we didn't, but again any controversy that may be raised by religious groups, or animal activists or anything like that could spell the end very quickly. Plus, I don't think that the dodo would generate a lot of buzz the way a dinosaur would, so in a way, you have to settle for a mammoth, and there's a very good chance it wouldn't survive infancy. Pumping money into this idea would turn sour quickly when investors weren't getting the desired result, again like selective breeding, it's all trial and error and especially when fooling around with the sequencing of an animal, you have a very good chance of not getting what you want, especially since each gene represents more than one trait. So let's say we wanted to get a mammoth, I would estimate we would go through maybe 20 or more animals before you got something that could be considered as such, and that's just getting it. You have to somehow raise it to adulthood and continue forward. Again, I don't see any long term goal here.
In theory, I do admit that it would be cool to see an extinct animal. I'm a big animal lover and I'm always saddened to see something die out or be in a critical state. However, at the same time...it's just how things work and we have to accept it. Even though we are the ones that are responsible for most of the deaths of these animals, they weren't strong enough to adapt, let alone be brought back. As much as I hate polar bears, I have to go back to an earlier point I made about how difficult some animals are having it right now, and we want to bring back an animal that collectively survives in the same habitat? Now isn't the time.
We can't go back in time and help these creatures. We have to move forward and focus on what we have left. Not trying to get all Captain Planet on you guys, but there's better things that we can do right now.
|
|
|
Post by onetruemisfit on Mar 21, 2013 1:45:35 GMT -5
Jurassic park or fail :/
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Mar 21, 2013 2:53:43 GMT -5
Let's not bring back giant flesh eating big cats with 12 inch fangs. The good news is those fangs were not for sinking into the flesh of prey. The bad news is that their jaws opened so wide that the theory is that the teeth were meant to lock around its prey's neck so as to snap it.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Mar 21, 2013 3:20:54 GMT -5
Now to address a couple of points since I last posted.
1) Science only works one way. Biology is the variable one.
2) I think a case can be made for the Thylacine, considering that aggressive hunting campaignsseemed to get the ball rolling towards extinction. Furthermore, I think Australia's abundance of kangaroos and overabundance of rabbits could use a new predator for control. Also, they only died out as of 1936. Very recent; the environment simply hasn't changed much since then.
3) I think, given their size, that the beef industry might be interested in aurochses. Maybe. They already can breed some huge cattle though.
4) If we can perfect the virtual resurrection of a species, we can save future ones by preserving their DNA and embryos or else reproductive cells.
5) Finally, a pat on the back can be inspiring. Imagine a child learning that not only were, say, mastodons, sabertooth tigers, and dodos (whatever) "brought back," but it was done by who? Scientists. And they can be one too if they hit the books and do well in school. A very different thing, more of a side effect, but good in the long run.
6) As far as DNA replication and substitute embryos goes, I think I want to see the finished product before dismissing it all as "oh, it's still not really [creature X]." Is it literally not [creature X]? Sure, but there may be a "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" factor in the end product. Of course, humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical, genetically speaking...
7) For the record, I know what I really want if the project yields anything of substance, and I think anyone here can guess, but it's a tree to bark up for a very different day.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 21, 2013 10:14:56 GMT -5
The world isn't that different at all. There's the same concerns as before, they don't disappear or diminish after just 15 years. There's been numerous statistics done over cloned meat and overwhelmingly, people have been against it. Granted, that's consuming cloned meat, but the point still stands, most people are still leery about the whole thing, and bringing back an extinct animal will almost certainly be polarizing in more ways than one. There's plenty of research on the matter, and it's something that raises interest, but can definitely lead a lot to being upset. I'm sure the headlines would trick everyone into believing we had something we didn't, but again any controversy that may be raised by religious groups, or animal activists or anything like that could spell the end very quickly. Plus, I don't think that the dodo would generate a lot of buzz the way a dinosaur would, so in a way, you have to settle for a mammoth, and there's a very good chance it wouldn't survive infancy. Pumping money into this idea would turn sour quickly when investors weren't getting the desired result, again like selective breeding, it's all trial and error and especially when fooling around with the sequencing of an animal, you have a very good chance of not getting what you want, especially since each gene represents more than one trait. So let's say we wanted to get a mammoth, I would estimate we would go through maybe 20 or more animals before you got something that could be considered as such, and that's just getting it. You have to somehow raise it to adulthood and continue forward. Again, I don't see any long term goal here. In theory, I do admit that it would be cool to see an extinct animal. I'm a big animal lover and I'm always saddened to see something die out or be in a critical state. However, at the same time...it's just how things work and we have to accept it. Even though we are the ones that are responsible for most of the deaths of these animals, they weren't strong enough to adapt, let alone be brought back. As much as I hate polar bears, I have to go back to an earlier point I made about how difficult some animals are having it right now, and we want to bring back an animal that collectively survives in the same habitat? Now isn't the time. We can't go back in time and help these creatures. We have to move forward and focus on what we have left. Not trying to get all Captain Planet on you guys, but there's better things that we can do right now. I don't think the issues are different so much as the people. 15 years doesn't change issues all that much, but it does change how people looked at them. People are against cloned meat because they are concerned how this affects them and how they don't have a choice in what they eat. This is the kind of thing that could be easily framed as "science SAVES extinct animals!" and turn things around. Again, I honestly have no idea how this would turn out...but you are right in that the risk here would be pretty big. One big outrage would turn off investors pretty quickly, so it would be a rather big gamble for no reason. There are safer ways to raise money and awareness for the research. I don't think the natural way of things is necessarily the end-all argument for not doing something, but to be honest, much as I argue otherwise, I kind of agree with you that this is a waste of money and time. It's just hard to keep the little child inside of me from screaming "I WANT A FLYING DRAGON!" ...Even though that would be entirely impossible. But you get what I mean.
|
|