Should We Clone Extinct Animals?

By adaptation I also mean the habitat. You kept using that as your argument on why they shouldn't be brought back, but it can equally be used as an argument hat they should be brought back.

Very. You'd have to first do careful studies of the animal in the lab, and of the environment you'd want to release it into. You'd have to do a very in-depth look at the likely environmental impact. And then you'd have to release a very small test population and gauge the results. Those, for the record, are just the kinds of things I can think of off the top of my head, not the only ones I'd want people doing.

I say we solve international piracy by cloning the Megalodon.

And put lasers on their head!

I don't think Mammoths would do much ecological damage. They do live births, right? And if they shockingly end up too numerous, we can cull them. It's easy for humans to get rid of the big ones.

Besides, look at the current state of elephants. It would be a miracle if Mammoths breed enough numbers to sustain themselves. Now, if we were talking about meter-sized cockroaches... Or... mosasaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur) which better not be released into the wild unless you want everything else to wind up extinct.

The problem basically is more of where we would put them. We can't even protect modern elephants properly enough. And just HAH - if you think you can keep poachers from going after mammoth ivory. You'd have to build a Jurassic Park first. Meaning private money, rather than depending on the government.

I say we bring back North African Elephants to spite the ancient Romans.

Then we ride them to war!

I know you're joking, but I'll reiterate once again, we can't clone mososaurs, or dinosaurs, or giant prehistoric bugs. It's 100% impossible, at least with any technology we have now, or will have at any point in the future. There is no usable DNA. If it wasn't alive 800 000 years ago, we can't bring it back.

And that's fine, because we weren't causing much in the way of extinctions 800 000 years ago.

edited 4th May '15 9:31:25 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Oh yeah? Venite ad me, frat !^note 'Come at me bro' in Latin, although it's not a very accurate translation, the Latin word for brother being frater

edited 4th May '15 9:50:04 PM by Quag15

Alternatively we could ride these◊ to war.

As sad as it is that we wiped it out, a giant bear isn't really a safe mount for the rider.

yep, 50000 years is the limit, even then Eurasian megafauna should be excluded for the most part.

edited 4th May '15 9:57:38 PM by Bk-notburgerking

Sad? Have you seen that thing? It's fucking terrifying! I'm glad we wiped that fucker off the map. I mean shit do you see its claws an shit?!

In all seriousness Arctodus is best kept in Zoos if they are ever returned to life.

The Arctodus Simus, or The Giant Short-Faced Bear became extinct about 12,000 years ago and is believed to have been the one on Earth to run the fastest. This was because the direction of the toes was straight forward instead of spread out as they are on all other species of bears. These animals lived in the areas of North America, mainly California. It is believed that they went extinct due to changes in their natural environment. Maybe, just maybe, we didn't killed them all.

edited 4th May '15 10:01:18 PM by Quag15

Turns out those natural changes (lack of food) were caused by humans. I have a bad memory of bringing this up, so won't discuss this further but do some research.

Why are we sad about the absence of massive demon bears?

Because they would have been here and are supposed to be here, but for us.

About mammoths and the environment. Picture the African plains. Do you know why they're plains? Four heavy lifters, not counting ancient climate change: termites, giraffes, us... And elephants. Guess who started bulldozing before we learned to use fire?

Nothing is supposed to be here. If it got wiped out that means it wasn't robust enough to survive its environment. Period.

It was robust enough until we change it. That isn't natural selection.

About the plains: exactly. They are supposed to be plains, so we need mammoths to bulldoze them.

I don't get your logic: you want to bring back extinct species because of our alleged faults/crimes, yet, you want them to serve a purpose even though they might create a bigger havoc among other species in the current habitats?

It is natural because HUMANS ARE A PART OF NATURE!

edited 4th May '15 10:17:44 PM by Canid117

Because what you consider havoc isn't. The trees that need flattening aren't supposed to be there in the first place-they are the real invasive species.

Who decides what is and what isn't supposed to be there?

So, you prioritize extinct fauna over living flora, because the flora is invasive, even though the lack of said flora would cause some fauna to disappear or be forced to adapt quickly?

...

edited 4th May '15 10:23:02 PM by Quag15

If they adapted when the flora invaded, they can adapt when it leaves.

And just because it's extinct doesn't mean it isn't part of he modern biosphere.