Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bringing back extinct species

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    I agree with everything you've just said Adam. Think about the funds that would be required to bring back some of these species and how much more good it would do if invested in conservation.

    I also dislike the argument that it would be done just to prove that it can be done or for the sake of vanity. We need to think of the welfare of the species being brought back and all the inhabitants of the ecosystem it would be released into, not what we think would be impressive.


  • Options
    #33
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,645 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Recent extinctions ie. in the past 1000 years or so should be given priority assuming there is habitat etc. to support any particular species.


  • Options
    #34
    vicwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 28,403 ✭✭✭✭vicwatson


    Article in this months National Geographic, haven't read it yet.

    I think that we should being back species, if possible, that man has hunted to extinction (maybe there's not many) but those that became extinct through natural means and natural progression should remain extinct.

    Just my twopence worth


  • Options
    #35
    OpenYourEyes
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 3,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭OpenYourEyes


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Recent extinctions ie. in the past 1000 years or so should be given priority assuming there is habitat etc. to support any particular species.

    I agree, and also I'd imagine the quality of DNA preserved would make these top of the list anyway.


  • Options
    #36
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    To be honest I don't understand why people are against this. Most zoologists are wetting themselves over this. The thing is by making these animals extinct in the first place the ecosystem did change. Conversationalists want to restore these ecosystems to the way they were while protecting extant species.

    As regards the money used to fund this it is a lot yes. Conservation also gets a lot aswell. The WWF put large amounts of money into their campaigns and they have some success. The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

    The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    To be honest I don't understand why people are against this. Most zoologists are wetting themselves over this. The thing is by making these animals extinct in the first place the ecosystem did change. Conversationalists want to restore these ecosystems to the way they were while protecting extant species.

    As regards the money used to fund this it is a lot yes. Conservation also gets a lot aswell. The WWF put large amounts of money into their campaigns and they have some success. The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

    The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.

    But, bring them back for what?

    My point, and I suposse it may be the point of others who are against this (or at least not thrilled about it) is that if elephants did go extinct, because of overhunting or the war of extermination by farmers, or the fragmentation of habitat... what kind of world would expect the elephants we brought back?

    I believe that it is more important to find solutions to the current problem- the factors that are making elephants go extinct in the first place- instead of worrying about bringing them back once they dissappear.
    If by the time we bring elephants back there is no longer enough space and habitat for them, or people are ready to start slaughtering them again... wouldn´t it be better for them to stay dead? Bringing an extinct species only to have it in a cage as a curiosity seems wrong to me.

    Now don´t get me wrong, I would be as thrilled as the next man to see an extinct species come back, but it should be done only as long as there's a future for that species. Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them. And truth is, if you found a way of preserving the rainforest, you wouldn´t need to be thinking of cloning orangs back to life!


  • Options
    #38
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    But, bring them back for what?

    My point, and I suposse it may be the point of others who are against this (or at least not thrilled about it) is that if elephants did go extinct, because of overhunting or the war of extermination by farmers, or the fragmentation of habitat... what kind of world would expect the elephants we brought back?

    I believe that it is more important to find solutions to the current problem- the factors that are making elephants go extinct in the first place- instead of worrying about bringing them back once they dissappear.
    If by the time we bring elephants back there is no longer enough space and habitat for them, or people are ready to start slaughtering them again... wouldn´t it be better for them to stay dead? Bringing an extinct species only to have it in a cage as a curiosity seems wrong to me.

    Now don´t get me wrong, I would be as thrilled as the next man to see an extinct species come back, but it should be done only as long as there's a future for that species. Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them. And truth is, if you found a way of preserving the rainforest, you wouldn´t need to be thinking of cloning orangs back to life!


    No it wouldn't because if we get to that point then conservation is useless.


  • Options
    #39
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    No it wouldn't because if we get to that point then conservation is useless.

    Exactly. If we get to the point in which bringing the animals back would serve no purpose but to prove that we can, or to feel better about ourselves, as if we were making it up for failing to preserve them in the first place, or to have them as mere curiosities in permanent captivity, then yes, conservation was useless!

    There's no point in bringing it back if its no longer gonna be part of its original ecosystem which is supossed to be the point of conservation.


  • Options
    #40
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Exactly. If we get to the point in which bringing the animals back would serve no purpose but to prove that we can, or to feel better about ourselves, as if we were making it up for failing to preserve them in the first place, or to have them as mere curiosities in permanent captivity, then yes, conservation was useless!

    There's no point in bringing it back if its no longer gonna be part of its original ecosystem which is supossed to be the point of conservation.

    I think you misunderstood my post. It is never an option to give up on conservation. We have the technology to bring them back so conservation goes on. Anyway I am up early and I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will leave it here.


  • Options
    #41
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I think you misunderstood my post. It is never an option to give up on conservation. We have the technology to bring them back so conservation goes on. Anyway I am up early and I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will leave it here.

    Fair enough


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.

    This I agree with completely. I'm against bringing back things like mammoths and sabertooths because they died out naturally and they should stay extinct. But species which have died out due to man being brought back is different.
    Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them.

    I also agree with this sentiment strongly.


  • Options
    #43
    OpenYourEyes
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 3,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭OpenYourEyes


    It was said earlier in this thread, and I think it's true, that while this research has applications for conservation, it isn't being pushed forward for reasons of conservation or by conservationists/zoologists - the research and techniques are being financed and pushed forward for the benefits to areas like genetics and possibly biomed.


  • Options
    #44
    Ziphius
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    OpenYourEyes wrote: »
    It was said earlier in this thread, and I think it's true, that while this research has applications for conservation, it isn't being pushed forward for reasons of conservation or by conservationists/zoologists - the research and techniques are being financed and pushed forward for the benefits to areas like genetics and possibly biomed.

    Indeed. No doubt recreating ancient genomes will provide use with a wealth of information and understanding in fields of basic biology (such as genetics and evolutionary biology) but as a method of species conservation it is completely unworkable.

    Adam Khor has some excellent posts on its flows so there is no point in me rehashing his arguments.

    The impression I get is that "de-extinction" is just a savvy marketing slogan and not a solution to the current mass extinction.


  • Options
    #45
    Ziphius
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

    What do you mean by "dark secret"? It seems obvious that for a conservation project to be successful it needs the support of local stakeholders. It needs to be made worthwhile for people.

    I can actually see the "de-extinction" hype being damaging to conservation work. I mean why protect a species now if you can just recreate it in a lab later?


  • Options
    #46
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,645 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    .

    The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year,.

    600?? - more like 30-40,000 eles!!!. Tanzania alone is losing up to 70 a day as poachers loot famous NP's like Selous with near impunity.

    http://allafrica.com/stories/201304060468.html


  • Options
    #47
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    600?? - more like 30-40,000 eles!!!. Tanzania alone is losing up to 70 a day as poachers loot famous NP's like Selous with near impunity.

    http://allafrica.com/stories/201304060468.html

    That is really terrible :/

    The numbers of sharks killed every year are also hard to believe and makes one wonder how is it possible that we still have sharks at all at this point... It is kinda sad to read old zoology books in which it was stated that sharks are "unlike land carnivores, still abundant and unaffected by human activity".


  • Options
    #48
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    This month's issue of National Geographic has a really interesting article on this. I'd definitely recommend buying it. Here's some information from their website on the topic. Worth reading the comments too.

    http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/your-de-extinction-questions-answered/


  • Options
    #49
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Hollzy wrote: »
    This month's issue of National Geographic has a really interesting article on this. I'd definitely recommend buying it. Here's some information from their website on the topic. Worth reading the comments too.

    http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/your-de-extinction-questions-answered/


    I find it quite irritating that people start recommending Nat Geo issues immediatly after I decide to stop buying the magazine for the first time since 1999...

    But honestly, I almost broke my back carrying boxes of Nat Geos last time I moved :pac:


  • Options
    #50
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    I'm sorry :P I have a decent collection of them myself but my parents have loads of issues that are over twenty years old. They're worth keeping alright! The Q and A on that website will give you the gist of it anyway.


  • Options
    #51
    Ziphius
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    There is quite a lot of articles available online: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/

    Is there much more in the hard copy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    Ah, didn't see all of that until now. You have all of it there really. If anyone is particularly interested in mammoths, they had another article about their tusks being found in Siberia and the people who go looking for them. Bit off topic but good article!


  • Options
    #53
    The Pheasant
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭The Pheasant


    I'd really like to see the Thylacine brought back; I assume they'd be out competed by dingoes on mainland Australia, but are there currently any predators filling the Thylacine's niche on Tasmania?


  • Options
    #54
    dodderangler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    The Pheasant wrote: »
    I'd really like to see the Thylacine brought back; I assume they'd be out competed by dingoes on mainland Australia, but are there currently any predators filling the Thylacine's niche on Tasmania?
    Not really
    I'm assuming the top predator on the island is the Tasmanian devil.
    Though foxes were introduced they probably wouldn't go near the devil( I wouldn't anyway)
    Birds of prey could probably take young devils I suppose but don't think mam would be too far away to allow that to happen
    I'd like to see the thylacine back aswell.


  • Options
    #55
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Birds of prey could probably take young devils I suppose but don't think mam would be too far away to allow that to happen
    .

    Young devils sometimes fall prey to a relative, actually (not in that way sickos).

    Meet the spotted quoll, known to kill devils with a bite to the back of the neck:
    quoll_leapingLg.jpg


  • Options
    #56
    dodderangler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    Wtf
    Is that like a ghost or something?
    The pic looks weird to me?
    I've heard of these lads before


  • Options
    #57
    Hollzy
    Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭Hollzy


    I love quolls! I became a big fan of them after watching Attenborough's Ark. Anyone who hasn't seen that really should. Fantastic documentary.

    I would also like to see the thylacine back.


  • Options
    #58
    The Pheasant
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭The Pheasant


    If we were gonna bring back the Moa I'd also love to bring back Haast's Eagle - possibly the most badass bird ever! Maybe whith the exception of Diatryma

    EDIT: After some research I will conclude that Kelenken guillermoi was probably the most badass bird ever


  • Options
    #59
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    Why don't they regenerate the populations of endangered tigers etc first?


  • Options
    #60
    dodderangler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    The Pheasant wrote: »
    If we were gonna bring back the Moa I'd also love to bring back Haast's Eagle - possibly the most badass bird ever! Maybe which the exception of Diatryma

    . The eagle preyed on Moa so wouldn't be right to bring it back to be preyed on straight away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    dodderangler wrote: »
    . The eagle preyed on Moa so wouldn't be right to bring it back to be preyed on straight away.

    I seriously doubt scientists would release their moas into the wild. Not only there's less and less viable forest for them nowadays, but cloning each one would probably be crazy expensive. I bet they would keep them in captivity, being closely studied and monitored and hoping they wouldn´t die, but at the same time waiting eagerly for them to do so, so that they can cut them open and see what's inside...

    Which means that they could bring the moa and the eagle back and keep them separately without danger of them killing each other...

    PS- Until its proven to be an obligate scavenger, I believe Argentavis is the most badass bird ever :cool:


Advertisement