Should We "Re-create" Nature?

If we had nothing to do with an animal going extinct, then let it stay that way. It's the natural cycle of nature - 99% of the species that have ever existed are extinct, and new ones are introduced with evolution.

However, our industrial age activities have been impeding on nature, so saving species that we are wiping out is a band aid solution, really. We need to butt out and evolve to a more sustainable existence that doesn't wreak havoc on everyone else.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

If you drink too much alcohol, you get a hangover. You can't blame that on the liquor producer. But we might have to add a disclaimer:

Warning: immoderate discussion may adversely affect your health, resulting in headache, sore throat and damaged social relations. Enjoy discussion in moderation

:P[/QUOTE]

LOL! Good one!

[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]

or are we just messing about with stuff we can't actually handle?
Whilst all this sounds really exciting, what quality of life could we actually give to these "animals"?



Or can any good actually come of it?
[/QUOTE]
well there's one thing in all of this that makes it worth the consideration in the first place:
we (mankind) may be able to do it - no other living creature has that ability.
secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be it

Bob and Brenski have given answers that are poles apart, but bring quite a lot to the table. Plenty to think about from both.

@ Bob - regarding your view on those animals made extinct through nature: a point well made. I hadn't thought about it like that at all, although I still can't help but feel sorry for the poor bastards who didn't make it. I don't know if I can fully agree with your final sentiment, though. 'tis true that we do need to evolve and not wreak havoc, yet, with the possibility of righting wrongs.....I don't see why we can't marry both ideas.

@ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-)

Very insightful thoughts about "why" such DNA is left behind. I think you may be on to something, there......

[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be it
[/QUOTE]

Wow! THAT statement really shocked me into a completely different way of thinking this through. The BIG picture! Way beyond us wanting to see extinct animals roam the earth once again, or worrying about the planet, or the people... Our reality which is everything to us, is actually so insignificant. Just a bunch of DNA in the end.
OK Thistleboy, more Migraleve please. I really do not want to think about this anymore, but keep getting drawn into checking out this topic. No more now. I'm done!

[QUOTE] [b]noorie wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]
[b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
secondly, if the DNA of something "long-extinct" is trapped in some glacier or amber or whatever, then it's (strictly speaking) not extinct. it was left there for a reason - for whichever creature had the ability - to find out more about it - and if that means "reanimation" then so be it
[/QUOTE]

Wow! THAT statement really shocked me into a completely different way of thinking this through. The BIG picture......our reality which is everything to us, is actually so insignificant. Just a bunch of DNA in the end.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that noorie - I didn't actually pick up that Brenski may have meant it that way: you've literally made the penny drop. WOW indeed!!

2 Migraleve coming your way :-)

[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]

@ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-)
[/QUOTE]

yes people are dead, but their species isn't...WE continue.
and, while our DNA get's embedded in some rock somewhere high up in the andes(or wherever) then long after humankind "appears" to have ceased to roam the earth, our species will exist for whoever comes later to "discover" and rejuvenate...which is no more than is being done with mammothkind...

BRenSKi, I hope you are not upset. I am really really sorry if you are!

[QUOTE] [b]noorie wrote:[/b]
‘What is it called?’
‘A BRain ENhanced, Super Kinetic Intelligence!’
Oh! A BRENSKI!

BRenSKi this is done with utmost respect, because I truly enjoy your posts, and believe you have super intelligence
[/QUOTE]
i don't believe for one minute that you actually mean that. let's face it if your "joke" was meant to be respectful to someone you felt was "superintelligent" then why not Real Wizard/Pittrek or Your valentine? - no you did this to have a dig. good luck to you....at least when i have a pop at someone, i don't hide behind "back-handed" compliments - if i'm having a go then the recipient is in now doubt about it. what you've done is a little cowardly
[QUOTE] [b]noorie wrote:[/b]
and a terrific sense of humour. No disrespect intended.
BRenSKi, I hope you are not upset. I am really really sorry if you are!
[/QUOTE]
by the way - i'm not upset at the (ahem) "joke" - even though it lacks any kind of quality - as we've never really discussed anything - so i can not see why you'd individually select me....
what does upset me is that if you're going to "joke" then at least make it all your own work - don't go and start another "how do i paste a picture" thread - to elicit help to make your joke possible...it's lacking in loads
in truth - you're batting way above your level better luck next time :-)

"i don't believe for one minute that you actually mean that. let's face it if your "joke" was meant to be respectful to someone you felt was "superintelligent" then why not Real Wizard/Pittrek or Your valentine? .."

Actually, this little story is set in the future and the creature the scientists re-create is just us humans. I used you name because you have been contributing to this topic very intelligently, coming up with ideas that had not occurred to anybody else. I really do find your posts most interesting and intelligent (I am not poking fun or being sarcastic here), and I meant it as a thumbs up to you. That is all!
I am really and truly sorry. I absolutely did not mean it disrespectfully.

"what does upset me is that if you're going to "joke" then at least make it all your own work - don't go and start another "how do i paste a picture" thread - to elicit help to make your joke possible...it's lacking in loads "

I wanted to add the picture of that cute little human baby to show that it was the humans who were being re-created. I am not very smart in tech stuff, so I just asked how I could download a picture with my post.

I have deleted the post. Please forgive me.

[QUOTE]

[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]

@ Brenski - That's a bold argument about extinction altogether. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can agree that a trace of DNA = not extinct. Long deceased folk may have left traces of DNA behind....but they're still dead :-)
[/QUOTE]

yes people are dead, but their species isn't...WE continue.
and, while our DNA get's embedded in some rock somewhere high up in the andes(or wherever) then long after humankind "appears" to have ceased to roam the earth, our species will exist for whoever comes later to "discover" and rejuvenate...which is no more than is being done with mammothkind...
[/QUOTE]
[b]Extinction: [i]No longer existing or living[/i][/b].
[b]DNA: [i]deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.[/i][/b]
well in absolute terms then i'd say that the meaning of "existing" and "DNA" are pertinent to any calculation of extinction
while DNA exists then, although the species doesn't "live", it still "exists"

Eventually this thread will become extinct due to a sad lack of survival skills, a harsh climate, and unanticipated meteor showers.