Bringing back species, engineering humans, altering plans, are we playing god?

token101

steddyeddy wrote: »

Playing god is a figure of speech. Please tell me things have got that bad that people cant mention the concept of god or the word "god" without getting criticised.

It's not really though is it? It has an implicit meaning that only the supernatural should intervene in nature despite advances allowing humanity to do so. Trying to cure cancer, AIDs, HIV, that's all playing God too but you don't ever hear people moaning about that. If my hypothetical dying wife or child can be cured by someone growing her a new organ or cells in a lab somewhere, I won't be listening to the protests of some wanker talking about "playing God", I'll be asking how quickly it can be sorted. If the luddites want to march towards the kingdom of heaven, off they go, but don't be dragging me with you.

Duggy747

They should be talking about bringing Freddie Mercury back!

cruais

I buy all my guns from a fella called T-Rex.

He's a small arms dealer..

shedweller

cruais wrote: »

I buy all my guns from a fella called T-Rex.

He's a small arms dealer..

You've brightened my monday morning. Thanks!

cruais

shedweller wrote: »

You've brightened my monday morning. Thanks!

He also hates doing push ups!

kylith

steddyeddy wrote: »

The animals that are being brought back are generally keystone species that have completely changed the ecosystem by being made extinct in the first place. Wooly mammoths would be one of the easiest ones to do!

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the end of the ice age was a huge factor in the extinction of the Mammoths, this would mean that climate and habitat today are unsuitable for them, and bringing them back to reintroduce them to the wild would do more harm than good to an ecosystem that hasn't had to deal with their like for 10, 000 years.

I'd be much happier to see the technology be used for bolstering the numbers of species which are currently endangered.

ScumLord

There doesn't seem to be much point in bringing back extinct animals, we barely have room for the animals that survived the human mass extinction event there's absolutely no point trying to reintroduce animals that we know can't survive now.

Morag

Which god? do we get to choose which god we want to play at being?
If so Shekmet I choose you!

steddyeddy

ScumLord wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be much point in bringing back extinct animals, we barely have room for the animals that survived the human mass extinction event there's absolutely no point trying to reintroduce animals that we know can't survive now.

Well we are in a mass extinction event at the moment unfortunately as caused by the less progressive members of our species. It is up to the more enlightened to change that.

ScumLord

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well we are in a mass extinction event at the moment unfortunately as caused by the less progressive members of our species. It is up to the more enlightened to change that.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Humans couldn't know going in that we'd have such an effect. For most of our history we had only local knowledge and couldn't fully appreciate the impact we were having globally. We've only really become fully aware of our impact in the last century and have started to address that issue now but the problem is people need/want the resources and we are naturally inclined, just like every other animal to take what we want and only consider the immediate consequences on ourselves.

But the fact is the human animal is a bizarre new species, no other animal has had this kind of impact so we're working in the dark trying to come up with solutions to problems that have never arose before. We are a force of nature, it will take awhile for us to find a balance but I believe we will, we have no choice but to find a balance or the ecosystem that suits us will disappear making it harder, not impossible for us to survive.

steddyeddy

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Humans couldn't know going in that we'd have such an effect. For most of our history we had only local knowledge and couldn't fully appreciate the impact we were having globally. We've only really become fully aware of our impact in the last century and have started to address that issue now but the problem is people need/want the resources and we are naturally inclined, just like every other animal to take what we want and only consider the immediate consequences on ourselves.

But the fact is the human animal is a bizarre new species, no other animal has had this kind of impact so we're working in the dark trying to come up with solutions to problems that have never arose before. We are a force of nature, it will take awhile for us to find a balance but I believe we will, we have no choice but to find a balance or the ecosystem that suits us will disappear making it harder, not impossible for us to survive.

In fairness I can understand someone hunting an animal because the need to eat but a lot of modern human destruction is caused by a lack of caring rather than a lack of understand. Over 600 thinks were killed last year in Africa alone. In this country a minority have farmers have tried to make rare birds of prey extinct for the same reason they were made extinct one hundred years ago. Its not about lack of undersigned at this stage its about idiocy.

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well we are in a mass extinction event at the moment unfortunately as caused by the less progressive members of our species. It is up to the more enlightened to change that.

Who are these less progressive folk? The globalist industrial groups wrecking habitats by tearing down forests and scarring the earth to get at bituminous sands etc.. or the penniless natives trying to survive in a world like that?

Does possessing the ability to bring animals back not go towards excusing the unimaginable destruction we continue to cause to our world? Does it not put conservation on the back burner... knowing that we can 'fix' things down the line?

Here's another somewhat relevant Ted Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZhL7P7w3as

Capt'n Midnight

Are there any big animals that went extinct in the last 100,000 years that weren't blamed on us ?

ScumLord

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are there any big animals that went extinct in the last 100,000 years that weren't blamed on us ?

Probably not, nature got lazy and we had to do a bit of a clean up. Were dodos really necessary? It was only a matter of time before they got wiped out. Most of Australia's animals appear to have been living the easy life if rabbits and frogs can wipe them out.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

Most of Australia's animals appear to have been living the easy life if rabbits and frogs can wipe them out.

Rest of the world was big in to the "red in tooth and claw" fighting and running business while Oz went all renascence Italy and the lads would be chilling out catching some rays and it's all like "yeah yeah you got fancy moves, but I could kill you with my little finger like this <snaps fingers>, you're blocking my sun" 'cos poisons use less energy than running around like a loon

and then these jack ass placental mammals arrive that don't know the code breeding like rabbits and cheating like foxes

steddyeddy

1ZRed wrote: »

I've actually read an article on epigenetics and how certain traits can be passed down that aren't necessarily dictated by DNA itself, like homosexuality -which rightly should not exist if the gene doesn't get passed on to the next generation. It was interesting, and AFAIK, epigentics it's a relatively new area of genetic study.

ATM though, I'm not studying anything.

Well it's never too late to go back Red. If you need an information as to how to go about it let me know!