No 'Jurassic Park': Dinosaurs off the de-extinction list

[Alice Allusion]

I'd love to see certain extinct animals brought back to life, if thier was hope of re introuducing them into the wild, and as cool as Dinosaurs are I don't think it be a good idea to bring them back.

[Lupa Fangs]

Eveille

Super Fightin Prototype

Eveille

Well, dinosaurs are still off the list just because we can't bring them back yet even if we wanted to no?

Also, the pigeon didn't really go extinct that long ago, a little over a century? Certainly not comparable to the others on the list.

I think that anything over 200 years extinct would be risky to reintroduce, I don't think they'd do as much good as they might do harm to a system that has evolved beyond them already. Perhaps keep them in a zoo environment? A GOOD zoo environment, not some circus side show or personal menagerie.

Personally I'd like to see certain plant species make a come back and Hawaiian and other island birds and mammal species that have been destroyed.

Most of all though I think I'd like this tech to help currently living species that are on the brink, like Asian variants of African animals, make a comeback.

I agree about not reintroducing long-extinct species but I still wouldn't put them in a zoo. Let the animals rest in peace - we don't need to bring them back just to turn them into an exhibit for zoos to make more money. Something like Six Flags Great Adventure would probably be better but I still wouldn't recommend we bring back the Wooly Mammoth just for that purpose.

Putting these formerly extinct (and near extinction) creatures in zoos should only be done if there is a chance they could be released into the wild. Otherwise they basically _will_ be a circus sideshow minus the tricks and bright lights. As a human, I'd be pretty horrified if I was only brought back so people could study my behavior and gawk at me eating a bag of grapes or something.

Yes it would be a sad existence, but if they are going to do it anyway, I'd prefer they treat the animals as well as is possible while conducting the research on evolution and habits or whatever. And the best I can think of is a large open zoo.

I suppose if they create one of the species, or a couple of the same gender there wouldn't be much harm in releasing them and observing them that way, but it can get out of hand quickly, as proven by the simple release of a couple of pets that has turned into full on invasions of other ecosystems.

Yah know I was thinking they could make them infertile and put a tracker on them. Of course that would keep them away from part of the research, but it's a thought.

[Pessimist]

Keltoi Samurai

Ringoringa

Not even for a real-life Jurassic Park? We don't have to release them into the wild! Aww, man, screw the people making these decisions, I want dinosaur zoos! I know, I know, "they could escape and wreak havoc on the ecosystem." Of course, the tigers in the zoos here could do the exact same thing, so that doesn't even work as an argument, really.

...I want a pet microraptor. gonk

I'd be up for it, if it were more like the proposed "Jurassic Park San Diego" from the second movie ( it's been too many years since I read the book to know if the motivations were similar in it ).

I mean, honestly, their original plan was to get a bunch of the smaller herbivores and one or two of the larger ones ( none of the various longnecks. in fact, the largest they captured was the single trike ), and the only reason there was the problem with the Rex in the first place was because Vince Vaughn set the captured herbivores free, and startled them into destroying the camp. and that would have been that, if Vince Vaughn hadn't then found an injured T-Rex chick ( their young are called "chicks," right? ), and brought it back to the one remaining human camp on the island, where it's parents found it, destroying that camp, and forcing both human groups to work together, which just gave Vince Vaughn a chance to pull the powder out of the hunter's rounds, which meant that when a Rex attacked the humans again, they couldn't kill it, and had to tranq it instead. seeing as they now only had a single dino tranqed, it was taken back to SD instead.

so, the moral of the story is, everything'll be fine so long as we keep Vince Vaughn at least 50 miles away from the whole endeavor at all times

I think keeping Vince Vaughn 50 miles away from most anything will improve the quality of life as we know it.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Pessimist

Keltoi Samurai

Ringoringa

Not even for a real-life Jurassic Park? We don't have to release them into the wild! Aww, man, screw the people making these decisions, I want dinosaur zoos! I know, I know, "they could escape and wreak havoc on the ecosystem." Of course, the tigers in the zoos here could do the exact same thing, so that doesn't even work as an argument, really.

...I want a pet microraptor. gonk

I'd be up for it, if it were more like the proposed "Jurassic Park San Diego" from the second movie ( it's been too many years since I read the book to know if the motivations were similar in it ).

I mean, honestly, their original plan was to get a bunch of the smaller herbivores and one or two of the larger ones ( none of the various longnecks. in fact, the largest they captured was the single trike ), and the only reason there was the problem with the Rex in the first place was because Vince Vaughn set the captured herbivores free, and startled them into destroying the camp. and that would have been that, if Vince Vaughn hadn't then found an injured T-Rex chick ( their young are called "chicks," right? ), and brought it back to the one remaining human camp on the island, where it's parents found it, destroying that camp, and forcing both human groups to work together, which just gave Vince Vaughn a chance to pull the powder out of the hunter's rounds, which meant that when a Rex attacked the humans again, they couldn't kill it, and had to tranq it instead. seeing as they now only had a single dino tranqed, it was taken back to SD instead.

so, the moral of the story is, everything'll be fine so long as we keep Vince Vaughn at least 50 miles away from the whole endeavor at all times

I think keeping Vince Vaughn 50 miles away from most anything will improve the quality of life as we know it.

agreed. the man has no place in any civilised society.

[Tuken]

I'm not sure if bringing them back through such a way can disqualify them not being still extinct. If a robot replica of a human being was created, that acted and functioned exactly like a human, would we say that human beings never went extinct, even if those machines were the last humans on Earth? Now, I realize these dinosaurs would be birthed through laboratories and all that, but it is still not within the natural process of reproduction. It's not purely from the species itself. It was reconstructed through means a laboratory could only expose, and not the outside world. So how can we say at all that the species would no longer be extinct? :/

[Nidorous]

Ringoringa

Not even for a real-life Jurassic Park? We don't have to release them into the wild! Aww, man, screw the people making these decisions, I want dinosaur zoos! I know, I know, "they could escape and wreak havoc on the ecosystem." Of course, the tigers in the zoos here could do the exact same thing, so that doesn't even work as an argument, really.

...I want a pet microraptor. gonk

This. whee

Maybe they could make a series of 'mini-dinos' to have as pets? blaugh
A small raptor about knee high? Wouldn't be any more dangerous than some other pets people have....

[Sailor Tin Nyanko]

*scratches*




"Can I come out of extinction, now?"

P.S. I love how some people are forgetting that Humanity is responsible for the Extinction of some Plants, Animals, and Species.

[Taka-tan]

I knew some scientists were working on de-extinction, didn't expect dinos to be on that list. Herbivores would be OK (mostly) but carnivores would be a little more tricky. T-rex or megadracosaurus getting near civilization? That might not end well. Or raptors. Those things were supposed to be vicious.
I'd like to see a Wooly Mamoth alive, but could some of those older animals survive in Earth's changed climates? The Dodo and Passenger pidgeon might, same with the Japanese wolf and thrylacine. But those are relatively recent extinctions.

[x-Garethp-x]

My God, the laziness of this article...

Yes, the conference is aimed at bringing back extinct species. The REASON why Dinosaurs aren't on the list - and never will be, is because DNA has a half life of something like 450 years. After 2.8 Million years, there would be NONE left. Therefore, species that died out 2.8 Million years ago or earlier, cannot EVER be brought back through their DNA

[x-Garethp-x]

Eveille

Well, dinosaurs are still off the list just because we can't bring them back yet even if we wanted to no?

We can't bring them back ever. After 2.8 Million years, DNA is destroyed. So any species that died out 2.8 Million years ago or earlier is gone forever

[Sleep Isabella]

It'd be cruel to try to bring back extinct creatures when they would not be able to survive in our current environment.

Earth was an entirely different planet back then, the atmosphere, the weather, the air... dinosaurs would not be capable to survive.

And honestly, I don't see the point in it. They'd need to manufacture an environmental shelter and create the food within the diet the creature they bring back.

They don't have a current purpose to serve in the cycle of life. To bring them back now is not to serve the purpose to keep a species from going extinct, it'd just be a spectacle. They'd just be doing it to create a zoo to show off.

If there are other reasons, ones where it'd truly be worth bringing them back, please explain.

I just can't see the purpose.

[Sailor Tin Nyanko]

Sleep Isabella

It'd be cruel to try to bring back extinct creatures when they would not be able to survive in our current environment.

Earth was an entirely different planet back then, the atmosphere, the weather, the air... dinosaurs would not be capable to survive.

And honestly, I don't see the point in it. They'd need to manufacture an environmental shelter and create the food within the diet the creature they bring back.

They don't have a current purpose to serve in the cycle of life. To bring them back now is not to serve the purpose to keep a species from going extinct, it'd just be a spectacle. They'd just be doing it to create a zoo to show off.

If there are other reasons, ones where it'd truly be worth bringing them back, please explain.

I just can't see the purpose.

There are some plants & animals that went extinct or extinct in areas ( might be around hundreds of miles away or another varient on a continent) recently.... and the ecosystem could use them.

Some were hunted to extinction recently by humans. Some were captured to extinction by humans. Some were lost to invasive species.

There are some pest,.. that are more so pest now because their competition or natural predator is missing.

There are some plants that have struggled or stopped spreading in areas because they are missing the birds that were mostly responsible for their cycles/pollenation and spread.

Pre-European Colonies versus Post-European Colonies @_@


There are also some domesticated animals that got a bad mutation at some point that is now dominently the norm that could use the genetics from before the mutation(s) brought back into the gene pool to help it because although humans thought something was neat it ultimately had negative effects >.< I doubt anyone is following this, but this includes some disorders where you need one parent to pass down one way a gene is while the other is another or if both pass down the gene the same way there are problems.


I am talking about more recent things though.

I completely agree a 2 million year ago Dinosaur would not be able to breath and eat on Earth as Earth currently is. There may be some things within the last 50,000 years that would stand a chance but would suffer socially among other issues. I'm a picky eatter, I could starve to death just fine if nothing is good rofl

[Ringoringa]

Nidorous

Ringoringa

Not even for a real-life Jurassic Park? We don't have to release them into the wild! Aww, man, screw the people making these decisions, I want dinosaur zoos! I know, I know, "they could escape and wreak havoc on the ecosystem." Of course, the tigers in the zoos here could do the exact same thing, so that doesn't even work as an argument, really.

...I want a pet microraptor. gonk

This. whee

Maybe they could make a series of 'mini-dinos' to have as pets? blaugh
A small raptor about knee high? Wouldn't be any more dangerous than some other pets people have....

The only problem is that you KNOW that some idiot is going to get bored of them and release them into the wild, screwing up the ecosystem in the process. It happens every time. gonk Morons ruin it for everyone.

[Honey of the South]

no thank you

I'd love to see the Dodo Bird make a comeback. smile

Aw, man. You gottoit before I could. No fair.

A return of the giant slothmight be cool though...

...and maybe a return of all those animals that we drove to extinction via overhunting.

[DarkAbyssOfStudentDebt]

Sailor Tin Nyanko

P.S. I love how some people are forgetting that Humanity is responsible for the Extinction of some Plants, Animals, and Species.

Some? I think you mean millions. Pretty sad.

Yes, riding a raptor to college would be /pretty/ awesome, but seeming as the biological and ecological systems around the world have since evolved to life without dinosaurs (No matter if they are herbivore, carnivore, omnivore or insectivore) it would be the biggest disaster ever.