What's your stance on bringing back extinct species?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's wipe out the ones we still have, first.

would be more fun to bring back some first, that way there would be more to wipe out.

We're well on the way to wiping out the only species which would make this possible.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

if the methane is expelled through its throat and ignited in its mouth the problem would be the same.    the inside of its mouth would be subjected to radiant heating from 3000 degree kelvin flame.

You're basically claiming methane flares are physically impossible. There are tens of thousands of them on the Bakken that would like to argue the point.

No,  I am claiming a methane flare that originates in an organic mouth is impossible without cooking the mouth.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You're basically claiming methane flares are physically impossible. There are tens of thousands of them on the Bakken that would like to argue the point.

No,  I am claiming a methane flare that originates in an organic mouth is impossible without cooking the mouth.

I don't disagree, which is why I didn't suggest it.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

You're basically claiming methane flares are physically impossible. There are tens of thousands of them on the Bakken that would like to argue the point.

No,  I am claiming a methane flare that originates in an organic mouth is impossible without cooking the mouth.

Then maybe you should read for comprehension instead of looking for a 'gotcha' moment.

[Anomalocaris]

Maybe you should comprehend something before issuing condescending and nonsensical remarks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe you should comprehend something before issuing condescending and nonsensical remarks.

To be fair, your point about methane igniting in the mouth was a strawman.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Organisms exist in ecological niches.  Very often they go extinct because that niche is no longer available.  I think it's ill-advised to bring a species back just because it's possible.  Where is it going to live?  Cruel to just stuff it into a zoo enclosure, and if you let it run wild it'll either die out again or unbalance the local ecosystem, displacing other species.

In the case of mammoths we wiped them out, that wiped out alot of other things, and very nearly wiped out those remaining species that had evolved specifically to them.  Their absence is the reason for "unbalance" in the first place....that's one of the fascinating things about alot of north and south america when you dig in.  What we perceive as some sort of balance of nature is no such thing.  The wilderness is not wild. It's the effect of our own actions.  

I think it's worth repairing what we can.  We're going to use genetics to do all sorts of strange shit, either way.   This is probably not the worst use I can think of.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, we, as in Homo sapiens, probably destroyed the Ice Age megafauna in north ad south america.  But the descendants of those Ice Age hunters created large, entirely man made ecosystems in the north east, mississippi valley and prarie states, as well as in central america and amazon that was evidently stable over period of several thousand years.  

The artificial restoration of the ice age megafauna is highly unlikely to be compatible with our economy and technological civilization.  but the sort of artificial, managed, and evidently sustainable ecosystems that the Native Americans created probably gives an better impression of what effectively managed sustainable ecosystem look like.

one of the things popular image of post-ice age but pre-columbia  native american culture misses is just how sustained, massive and far reaching their purposed intervention in ecosystem were.    the entire north american prairie is a artificial creation of the indians.   without their several thousand years of intensive land management through systematic annual burning, much of american prairies would have been forested woodland.   The same also applies to the vast Amazon forest in South America. The Amazon forest is by no means a primitive forest. The mixture of tree species in the Amazon is also largely an artifact of Indian land management over thousands of years. Even today the Amazon forest is still largely the artifact of several thousand years of Native American species selection and planting.

[The Grand Nudger]

A proof of concept. It's not beyond our ability to do this sort of thing. There are probably a ton of other species that would be a better fit for us, but if we're talking mammoths then it would be more for those ecosystems that miss them than for us. I think we'd have to qualify the idea that the gardens of those later cultures were stable. They were as stable as any other garden - in that they persist as long as the gardener keeps at it. They're not doing great at present.

I'll move along from mammoths (under protest, lol!)....because I think that the same questions arise when we talk about the introduction or reintroduction of beavers. They're also habitat creators. They have profound effects on the ecology of wherever they're at. Beneficial for the environment, but..sometimes, not for us. We did a number on them to, and like other keystones and habitat creators we find that it's pretty difficult to recreate or preserve or establish natural habitat without them. We could say that they've had their shot. That we should try to preserve what's left rather than what nature has selected for extinction - and even knowing that they would be beneficial to that goal, elect not to restore those populations and environments. Maybe find some other species that fits the task. Or, ofc, we could do it ourselves, like the gardeners..at least until we're gone or lose interest.

Ultimately, I think that any genuine plan to repair any of the damage we've done for the sake of repair, or even for the sake of saving ourselves..is going to end up meaning that we have to make alot of tough decisions. Do things that will be difficult to sell. Like relocating people or entire communities because of flood risks, for example.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just don't bring back my paternal grandmother.