Mammoth could be reborn in four years.

FRESH said:
We all remember what happened at the end of those Jurassic Park movies, exactly.:smt071:smt100
Click to expand...

jurassicholdbutts2.jpg
 
Just be cause you can, doesn't mean you should.

Sometimes I think scientists have their heads too far up their own backsides to see the world around them. Nature got rid of mammoths, bringing them back is idiotic and purely selfish. Why not bring back species that were made extinct by man? How about we try that instead? Geezuz, this shit just bites the big one.
 
As much as I think the Mammoth should stay gone, dead and remembered for the period it roamed this Earth. It would be pretty cool to visit some exotic Zoo someday where I could see pre-historic animals.
 
Redeemed One Jr said:
As much as I think the Mammoth should stay gone, dead and remembered for the period it roamed this Earth. It would be pretty cool to visit some exotic Zoo someday where I could see pre-historic animals.
Click to expand...

albeit it would be pretty cool, e past is the past, because it has pasted. The past isn't as cool if it can be drudged up all he time.
 
Pay attention to what my friend just said on another thread.

Impulse87 said:
ok rather than god's plan how about this, the bringing back of a mammoth, a massive beast that towers over our largest land mammals can have catastrophic effects on the environment, mammoths are big creatures, no doubt about that, that in mind they eat a lot of food in order to sustain themselves. When we bring one back we risk disturbing the balance of nature, not any of that spiritual stuff, but simply the fact that if we bring a mammoth back the following can very likely happen

1) bring back mammoths and release them into the wild, everyday it eats a ton of food to sustain itself

2) other animals in the area starve because the food that they were supposed to be eating was taken by the mammoth, herbivores die, carnivores then die because of the lack of prey,

3) a large number of animals in that area goes extinct because of lack of food causing them to die out.

I don't think it's really worth for dozens, or possibly even hundreds, of animals to go extinct in exchange for bringing back one animal that went extinct thousands of years ago.

Then there's also the fact that it's cloning we're talking about. I'm all "science yay!" for the most part, but I am strongly against cloning. While it is true that it hasn't gotten to the point where we are cloning people (and quite honestly I hope it doesn't) but cloning is without a doubt an abomination against nature, the dead should stay dead, and the living should live until they die.
Click to expand...

I do agree with him, to be honest with you guys. They should just stay extinct, period.
 
NCBradin said:
I do agree with him, to be honest with you guys. They should just stay extinct, period.
Click to expand...

Here's the interesting thing about that way of thinking. Cloning is wrong because it messes with the natural order right? So then what about finding cures and treatment for disease. If we followed your way of thinking we should allow those who can't fight disease to die and those who are naturally strong enough to fight off the disease should live.

I don't think they want to clone mammoths to restore their population but maybe to see what we can learn. My only problem with restoring prehistoric organisms is the chance they might introduce human beings to bacteria they haven't had to fight off for eons. The work sounds interesting and I'm all for cloning, I see no problem with self replicating for organ harvesting or even to have deeper understandings of how we work.
 
Interesting, however, I think more effort should be made to genectically engineer a new breed of human being. Ever saw the movie "Demon Seed"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom