Which animals would you bring back from extinction?

Kyro's fish.

yeah but where would introduce these animals

Should probably watch the ones we have now first, since they're dying off. Sucks...

Pikachu

Blackpool Rule wrote:yeah but where would introduce these animals

Well if we breed them enough to reintroduce them, then we should have a team of scientist in the proper fields to determine where one of these reintroduced animals would be able to to survive, and of those areas, which ones would the introduction of said animal not have a drastic negative effect on the environment.

Obviously, any animal who died off recently from let's say Australia, could be reintroduced with little to no problem.

Additionally, maybe some of those big American mammals could be suitable for domestic use? (Which would be cool, because then we can prove that Native Americans hunting down all their giant fauna screwed them up long term)

None. They are extinct for a reason. They were shit.

When captive bred animals which are extinct in the wild or do not exist in the habitat they are being introduced to, they are usually put in a quarantine patch in that habitat and observe them until they agree they should be introduced.

Look at how grey squirrels affected England, Snakehead fish fucked up american waters, Cane toads in Texas etc. Let nature run its flow. No point putting new shit in because we think its 'cool'.

Meh, we already fucked up the environment alot, now the environment has to recover. Alot of species we know today are going to die out and alot of new species will be born in the future IMO. I don't see what's wrong with introducing them, and allowing nature run wild until it finds it's balance again.

Dan wrote:None. They are extinct for a reason. They were shit.

Hardly.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Dan wrote:None. They are extinct for a reason. They were shit.

Hardly.

Please elaborate.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Hardly.

Please elaborate.

No.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Dan wrote:

Please elaborate.

No.

Interesting point. I would argue that those that are extinct were shit because they allowed themselves to become extinct. Pandas for example are becoming extinct because they are taking an abstinence approach and not poking each other. That is because they are shit.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

No.

Interesting point. I would argue that those that are extinct were shit because they allowed themselves to become extinct. Pandas for example are becoming extinct because they are taking an abstinence approach and not poking each other. That is because they are shit.

Excellent argument. However I would think that using Panda's as an example isn't fair on other extinct/endangered animals who aren't lazy bums. Besides, the animals I am interested in were mostly hunted to extinction by our savage barbaric ancestors even after successfully enduring climate changes on a massive scale. We can right the wrongs, some of them.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Hardly.

Please elaborate.

I shall elaborate. The Moa was a great species of animal. It was a flightless bird that lived in New Zealand. I guarentee that if the Moa still exsisted, then it would a very dangerous animal.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Dan wrote:

Interesting point. I would argue that those that are extinct were shit because they allowed themselves to become extinct. Pandas for example are becoming extinct because they are taking an abstinence approach and not poking each other. That is because they are shit.

Excellent argument. However I would think that using Panda's as an example isn't fair on other extinct/endangered animals who aren't lazy bums. Besides, the animals I am interested in were mostly hunted to extinction by our savage barbaric ancestors even after successfully enduring climate changes on a massive scale. We can right the wrongs, some of them.

Fantastic riposte. However, in order to survive creatures and beings need to be adaptable. If animals are unable to adapt to a new threat, then extinction is almost inevitable.

Also, these 'savage barbaric ancestors' of ours were doing what they needed to do in order to survive. They were adapting to new areas and trying to survive themselves. This makes them not shit.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Excellent argument. However I would think that using Panda's as an example isn't fair on other extinct/endangered animals who aren't lazy bums. Besides, the animals I am interested in were mostly hunted to extinction by our savage barbaric ancestors even after successfully enduring climate changes on a massive scale. We can right the wrongs, some of them.

Fantastic riposte. However, in order to survive creatures and beings need to be adaptable. If animals are unable to adapt to a new threat, then extinction is almost inevitable.

Also, these 'savage barbaric ancestors' of ours were doing what they needed to do in order to survive. They were adapting to new areas and trying to survive themselves. This makes them not shit.

Exquisite attention to detail. I'm fairly certain they killed beyond their needs. That makes them barbaric cretins.

Besides, we now have power to change the laws of nature in some aspects. Nature and human error dictated that countless unique and brilliant creatures should suffer unfortunate circumstances. I say bring them back. Just a few though, the environment is too shit to cope with too many.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Dan wrote:

Fantastic riposte. However, in order to survive creatures and beings need to be adaptable. If animals are unable to adapt to a new threat, then extinction is almost inevitable.

Also, these 'savage barbaric ancestors' of ours were doing what they needed to do in order to survive. They were adapting to new areas and trying to survive themselves. This makes them not shit.

Exquisite attention to detail. I'm fairly certain they killed beyond their needs. That makes them barbaric cretins.

Besides, we now have power to change the laws of nature in some aspects. Nature and human error dictated that countless unique and brilliant creatures should suffer unfortunate circumstances. I say bring them back. Just a few though, the environment is too shit to cope with too many.

Astronomical approach to thinking there. All this debate is irrelevant unfortunately. For now, we cannot bring creatures back from extinction. And Jurassic Park shows why we shouldn't.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Exquisite attention to detail. I'm fairly certain they killed beyond their needs. That makes them barbaric cretins.

Besides, we now have power to change the laws of nature in some aspects. Nature and human error dictated that countless unique and brilliant creatures should suffer unfortunate circumstances. I say bring them back. Just a few though, the environment is too shit to cope with too many.

Astronomical approach to thinking there. All this debate is irrelevant unfortunately. For now, we cannot bring creatures back from extinction. And Jurassic Park shows why we shouldn't.

Sorry, didn't watch it.

Neither did I actually. I just heard people died.

Dan wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Excellent argument. However I would think that using Panda's as an example isn't fair on other extinct/endangered animals who aren't lazy bums. Besides, the animals I am interested in were mostly hunted to extinction by our savage barbaric ancestors even after successfully enduring climate changes on a massive scale. We can right the wrongs, some of them.

Fantastic riposte. However, in order to survive creatures and beings need to be adaptable. If animals are unable to adapt to a new threat, then extinction is almost inevitable.

Also, these 'savage barbaric ancestors' of ours were doing what they needed to do in order to survive. They were adapting to new areas and trying to survive themselves. This makes them not shit.

The thing is though, that in Afro-Eurasia, the animals around us evolved with us. They evolved a natural fear of the human threat, and have then evolved/adapted ways of dealing with any nearby humans. (see the thread with the Zulu's taking food from Lions as an example)

Animals in Australia and the Americas did not evolve with humans, and thus did not evolve a natural responses to humans. When Humans crossed the land bridge into the Americas or paddled on primitive rafts to Australia, the animals they encountered did not care the Humans were nearby. More often than not, native americans/australians could just walk up to these animals and kill them with a pointy object, and the animal wouldn't know what was happening.

Take into account Humans are expert hunters with tools, and would kill every available animal they could find, and you get the Americas and Australia - Continents with lack of mega fauna, especially compared to Afro-Eurasia.

You two haven't seen Jurassic Park?

SBSP wrote:You two haven't seen Jurassic Park?

We now know to not use sex-changing frogs' DNA.

TBF I haven't watched Jurassic Park either.

polska. wrote:TBF I haven't watched Jurassic Park either.

Get the fuck out. You must watch it. It's a classic...

http://www.1channel.ch/watch-1248-Jurassic-Park