An explorers club in 1951 did dug up a frozen wooly mammoth and did in fact cook it and eat it. According to one of the people who did eat thousands of year old mammoth, "it was awful. It tasted like meat left too long in a freezer."
If they cloned a mammoth I bet there'd already be someone trying to poach its tusks and someone trying to eat it.
I vote Yes to seeing if we can do it, but No for trying to do it to try and repopulate the species out of some sort of bleeding heart agenda. Yes for the scientific advances, things we can learn, and the sheer excitement of it. If it turns out well, fun little zoo exhibit, at the very least. No because for most of these animals mentioned, their habitat is gone. Which is what led to their extinction in the first place. For the recent ones, where they may still find a viable habitat, it's very likely that other animals/processes have moved into the niche they vacated, so reintroducing an extinct species may cause more harm than good. You're now going to cause trauma to several OTHER species, or ruin a habitat, etc. All sorts of potential unexpected consequences. And for the most part, they had their chance and couldn't adapt. Would have to google to get even ballpark numbers, but the number of species that have lived and gone extinct on this planet has to absolutely DWARF the number currently in existence, so where are the cutoffs, and how do we pick who gets a 2nd chance and who stays dead? And sure, the same reasoning for one of the animals mentioned should apply to Neanderthals. Why did the story suddenly change for why we won't bring THEM back? Not as cute? We certainly squeezed THEM out, more directly than the mammoth even. And no raptors, of couse While we're at it, maybe we should just go ahead and bring back Jesus? The Bible says he's coming back, maybe this was supposed to be the method. Let's get this Rapture thing over with so we can stop speculating about it and get back to work...
Pretty much what I was going to say. The ecology and biology of the world was vastly different when these things were alive. It's not just the animals, but the plants and other things they ate too. So, if resurrecting, what would they eat? As you say, introducing these things would upset the natural balance. These animals would need prey. And then there's the possible diseases they'd introduce that modern animals and people would not have any defense against, not to mention it's possible the modern world would be too hostile to their immune system, much like how the aliens in War of the Worlds couldn't survive.
I would like to see most of the species killed by humans bought back. FYI i am not a bleeding heart liberal. I am an ex army sergent who is pro death on 3 issues, pro choice, pro death penalty and pro euthanasia. When you guys resurrect Jesus, Jesus is gonna say that he was the promised messiah of the Jews and only for the Jews and tells you guys to take a hike as you guys are uncircumcised gentiles. The nautral habitat for the Tasmanian Tiger, Pyrenean Ibex, Quagga, Moa, Dodo, Irish Elk, Passenger Pigeon, Great Auk, Liverpool Pigeon, Golden Toad, Caribbean Monk Seal, Bubal Hartebeest,Auroch, Barbary Lion, Atlas bear and North African elephant is still there as these creatures only became extinct in the last few centuries. The plants and preys are still there for them to munch on. As for the war of the world analogy. These aliens are not even from planet earth and hence they died easily of infection when exposed to our environment. The extinct creatures, we killed off, would certainly have a better immune system as they evolved on earth and we are reintroducing them back to their natural environment where they lived previously. We are not introducing Moa and Dodo to North America or the Great Auk and Auroch to Australia. If we can immunize ourselves against certain diseases, We can do the same for any creatures on earth. We humans have also helped to combat animal illness before.
Resurrecting individual extinct species is only Step One. We must also build vast space habitats where we can recreate entire ecologies from past epochs.
Introducing new species to an environment, whether they come from another continent, the past or genetic modification, is always going to have an impact on that environment, and the change is going to be unpredictable and potentially undesirable. Such actions should be taken carefully. There are ethical concerns too, particularly if we're talking about bringing back the Neanderthals, but they also apply to the relative of other species that show remarkable intelligence. This applies to mammoths and great apes. Intelligence does not translate to survivability directly, so it is possible (albeit extremely unlikely) that mammoths and extinct great apes are closer to us in intelligence than elephants or living non-human great apes. That being said, I don't think that either the dangers or the ethical concerns are strong enough to make resurrection of species unacceptable. And, acceptable or not, someone is going to do it one day with all the species that are deemed interesting, it is bound to happen regardless of the arguments against it. So, completely giving in to my own curiosity, I am looking forward to seeing what these species were like.
Right, but the point I was trying to make was that, just like those aliens, these animals having lived in a different period would be possibly be suffering similar symptoms. We take much of what we live in for granted, but our bodies have had to adapt to diseases and bacteria and gained resistance to many of them. If an extinct animal were to be reintroduced, our world might as well be alien to them as they've had never had exposure to some of what we've had exposure to over the span of several thousands of years since these animals walked the planet. It could be something very subtle that ends up being very critical.
Not according to that MSNBC special last night. It didn't help that they started with that "Day After Tomorrow" dreck from Communion Strieber's Coming Global Superstorm. Worse yet, Chris Hayes slimed atomic power-saying that the Savannah didn't work so well. I guess the success of the entire Rickover nuclear Navy escaped him. That is the single fastest way to reduce CO2, and wind farms may have been overestimated http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/...r-harvard-study-shows-it-to-be-overestimated/ Some thoughts on alternative energy: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137845-350-or-bust&p=2059780#post2059780 http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4078747.html http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-projects/magnetic-energy-storage-system From the ASTEN study: (big document http://www.scribd.com/doc/15362126/ASTEN-Report ) Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) is superior to both flywheels and batteries inthat they are have no moving parts, no chemicals, and are over 95% efficient at storing energy. Theywork by converting the electrical energy into magnetic energy by flowing electricity through asuperconducting wire, producing a magnetic current which can be stored and harnessed at a later timeto produce electricity (Unknown, 2002). Although extremely efficient and safe, the length of superconductive wire needed can exceed 160 kilometres. But the MSNBC special really made me mad when they compared fossil fuel use to 8 tracks. How dare they go after eight tracks! The haptics are so much easier than trying to prize CDs/DVDs out of packages without breaking them--but its all on the cloud now--until the next EMP that is. Agriculture is about the worst thing you can do. The plow has been far more devastating than the drill bit. Cool ship though.
If at first you don't succeed.... The other part of this is that cloning would not recreate any symbiotic bacteria that we would have no knowledge of and no way to recreate, like stomach bacteria that aids in digestion.
We wouldn't know if anything of that sort a problem unless we try, that is make a scientific experiment to test. That's a reason to try, not a reason not to try. That could also be a problem for space travel – what if during prolonged exposure to space, our gut bacteria go locally extinct for some reason because of the separation from the biosphere? Or evolve too fast? So the more we know about the ability of an organism to respond to unnatural changes of that sort, the better.
Good point. I think what's important is what we don't know and wouldn't possibly know along with what we do know. Sometimes we simply don't have the answers. Immunization was suggested, but then where do you start? How do you know what they're affected against? Our cure could quite possibly be disastrous under possible circumstances. It'd be like if in our future, they'd use the plague to treat certain illnesses, revive someone from our time, use the same treatment on them and expecting it to work the same way, whereas they'd most likely die from exposure to it. But then PETA would be all over you But yes, that's a good point. I just wouldn't do a first test on Dinosaurs. We all know how that turned out in the movies Another good point, and I don't think I've ever heard of anything like that, but quite philosophical.
Well, you'll note from all my previous posts that I'm in favor of the whole thing. That would be an excellent starting point for an SF story.
Of course it tasted awful, it had been dead for thousands of years... duh! A good steak must be fresh and preferable not frozen. Hilarious that was their first impulse, "Let's eat this thousands years old meat..." Just duh...
Who knows, maybe dinosaur meat is toxic, and maybe cloned dinosaurs would die immediately because the bacteria they needed for their gut flora do no longer exist either.