Mammoths may roam again

[red team]

Mammoths may roam again after 27,000 years (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2312860,00.html)

[Janus]

I'm not sure if they'll be able to fit in in our current environment rather I think this would mainly be used for experiment purposes.

[Delta]

Good, I'm bored as hell when I go to the zoo....

[Physco Bitch]

While it is a nice idea to bring back the species back. But doesn't anyone think about the simple fact that we can't look after the species of animals that are already dying out? Plus i could see them being a bigger temption to hunters, after all their tusks are bigger than the Elephants we have now. As it would be good if we could, but i am not sure wether it will be succesful or not. [COLOR=blue]
I still think we should begin looking after the mamals that we have becoming extinct now, then when we have managed to stop this that is beign caused in the most part (if not all parts) to human beings, then once we have managed this then we might be we might be ready to take on such a leap. Though i now it will take them a while to get succesful with this, i am still not totally convinced about wether we are ready to keep them alive without them being made extinct (this time being our fault). <_<

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:49 PM
Good, I&#39;m bored as hell when I go to the zoo....
Well, the only way to bring this creature back is through genetic manipulation. So does it count as the real thing, or a synthetic creation?

And if we are going to go the route of using genetics to ressurect creatures (for zoos) wouldn&#39;t it be more fun to just create new ones? Cross a elephant with a tiger, and put that in a zoo. That will pack them in.

[bcbm]

No man, this is a terrible idea&#33;&#33; Haven&#39;t you guys seen "Jurassic Park?&#33;" :lol:

[BuyOurEverything]

Well, the only way to bring this creature back is through genetic manipulation. So does it count as the real thing, or a synthetic creation?

Well I believe what they want to do is impregnate an Asian elephant with mammoth sperm, so it wouldn&#39;t be all mammoth. It&#39;s a hybrid, but it&#39;s not a "synthetic" creation. They aren&#39;t using gene splicing or anything.


Cross a elephant with a tiger, and put that in a zoo. That will pack them in.


Man, a tiger the size of an elephant would be badass. I&#39;d totally go to the zoo


While it is a nice idea to bring back the species back. But doesn&#39;t anyone think about the simple fact that we can&#39;t look after the species of animals that are already dying out?

I don&#39;t see why we can&#39;t do both.


Plus i could see them being a bigger temption to hunters, after all their tusks are bigger than the Elephants we have now.

Well I don&#39;t think they would just create a few of them and then release them into the wild.


Though i now it will take them a while to get succesful with this, i am still not totally convinced about wether we are ready to keep them alive without them being made extinct (this time being our fault).

But why does it matter if it becomes extinct again? It&#39;s extinct now, right? Can&#39;t get any worse...

[BuyOurEverything]

No man, this is a terrible idea&#33;&#33; Haven&#39;t you guys seen "Jurassic Park?&#33;"

Yes, and the lesson we learned was have better security&#33;

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

oh man&#33; new reality show in the making here.

We make an island of dinosaurs, and put some right wingers on there and see what happens.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 6 2006, 04:56 PM
No man, this is a terrible idea&#33;&#33; Haven&#39;t you guys seen "Jurassic Park?&#33;" :lol:
Jurrasic park? Bourgeois Michael Crichton lies&#33;

[Physco Bitch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:57 PM

Well, the only way to bring this creature back is through genetic manipulation. So does it count as the real thing, or a synthetic creation?

Well I believe what they want to do is impregnate an Asian elephant with mammoth sperm, so it wouldn&#39;t be all mammoth. It&#39;s a hybrid, but it&#39;s not a "synthetic" creation. They aren&#39;t using gene splicing or anything.


Cross a elephant with a tiger, and put that in a zoo. That will pack them in.


Man, a tiger the size of an elephant would be badass. I&#39;d totally go to the zoo


While it is a nice idea to bring back the species back. But doesn&#39;t anyone think about the simple fact that we can&#39;t look after the species of animals that are already dying out?

I don&#39;t see why we can&#39;t do both.


Plus i could see them being a bigger temption to hunters, after all their tusks are bigger than the Elephants we have now.

Well I don&#39;t think they would just create a few of them and then release them into the wild.


Though i now it will take them a while to get succesful with this, i am still not totally convinced about wether we are ready to keep them alive without them being made extinct (this time being our fault).

But why does it matter if it becomes extinct again? It&#39;s extinct now, right? Can&#39;t get any worse...
Why we can&#39;t do both? Well lets no more animals become extinct thanks to humans and then maybe you will be right we will be able to be responsible to look after yet another species. And so what if they create more than a few of them, straight away, no they wouldn&#39;t let them out into the wild, but it would be more than many zoo&#39;s can handle. They would have to be kept in zoo&#39;s for so long so yes that would be ok. But if succesful surely they will think about letting them loose - as they should be. So are you trying to say that it is alright to make something extinct because they are already? So if we kill of more of all mammals n and everything else out in the wild - because one day in the near or distant future we maybe succesful in bringing them back? My point was merely , they became extinct last time by natures means - but we shouldn&#39;t feel bad if we kill them all off because we maybe able to bring them back again? Hmm. I like your opinions and i am not saying that you aren&#39;t right - like you said we don&#39;t have them now . But when we can save all the other species then i will think that we would be ready for such an undertaking. :blink:

[emma_goldman]

I personally think this is a horrible idea. Introduction or vanishing of a species is always harmful for an ecosystem. :(

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 6 2006, 03:28 PM
Cross a elephant with a tiger, and put that in a zoo. That will pack them in.
Only certain species can be breeded together. There&#39;s species barriers.

[BuyOurEverything]

I personally think this is a horrible idea. Introduction or vanishing of a species is always harmful for an ecosystem.

Firstly, nobody is talking about introducing them inot the wild. Secondly, if they&#39;re genetically similar enough to an existing species to be able to breed with them, I don&#39;t think it would be a hugely devestating change.


Only certain species can be breeded together. There&#39;s species barriers.

I think he was reffering to gene splicing, not breeding.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:12 PM

I personally think this is a horrible idea. Introduction or vanishing of a species is always harmful for an ecosystem.

Firstly, nobody is talking about introducing them inot the wild. Secondly, if they&#39;re genetically similar enough to an existing species to be able to breed with them, I don&#39;t think it would be a hugely devestating change.


Only certain species can be breeded together. There&#39;s species barriers.

I think he was reffering to gene splicing, not breeding.
If they&#39;re a hybrid they will be infertile. Where will they be put?

[BuyOurEverything]

In a zoo.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:10 PM
In a zoo.
Well, that seems to me like further reason why it SHOULDN&#39;T be done.

[JazzRemington]

I am only interested in bringing dead species back to life if, and only if, said species is the Dodo. Dodo&#39;s own.

[BreadBros]

This holds a lot of potential. It may be possible to bring back species that have or are going extinct due to the industrialization of the world, once technology becomes cleaner and less destructive to the environment. Too bad it&#39;s only useful for mammals though.

[encephalon]

Fighting the usurpation of nature by humanity is reactionary. The one thing that defines us most is our ability to usurp nature and fit it to our needs.

There&#39;s no good reason not to do this. It could potentially teach us a lot, and they&#39;ve already been doing stuff like this for years now. They&#39;ve made glowing rabbits, goats that spit spider silk out of their nipples, see-through frogs.. the list goes on. It&#39;s called the learning procfess, and creates progress. A hybrid mammoth is not going to harm the world.

And the extinction of a species does not mean devastation to an ecosystem.. in fact, extinction is far more natural than non-extinction. It happened before humanity was born, and will continue to happen while we&#39;re here. Extinction happens because an ecosystem changes and the species cannot evolve to meet the new environment--this applies to man-induced extinctions as well as extinction overall. The introduction of a new species is a change in the ecosystem, not the destuction thereof.