Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#31

Post by chr1 »

option_greek wrote: post #27

Lets say a species is extinct. By trying to bring the species back, are we doing them any favor? Somehow sounds more like something that humans would do out of vanity than to serve any real purpose. On the other hand trying to save species that haven't gone extinct makes sense as you are trying to protect their way of life.

We are doing favour to us and to other living species.

E.g. restoring mammoths would add a bulldozer that would trample trees in the north and bring the place back to its natural state of grasslands, that protects permafrost and CO2 stored in it

see https://pleistocenepark.ru

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#32

Post by aj3 »

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing.

Humanity wiped out multiple species' social history and that change is irrevocable.

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#33

Post by truth4urts »

aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

Religion in that list makes what you're describing as progress.

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#34

Post by usrnm »

aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

In that hypothetical scenario, would you prefer humanity was left extinct? Culture can be recreated, or at least something new can be created in its place. If you're dead, that's it, you're gone

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#35

Post by Digit-Al »

riffraff wrote: post #20
hellbannedguy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A noble goal however, the planets biodiversity is in a death spiral." Except man. And it's sacreligious, especially here, to even talk about people having less kids. "The economic system counts on babies, and we need more!" which I have heard here so many times. I don't want to debate. I'm a nobody. I just think there are too many people on this planet, and we are ruining it for the rest of the animals.

> And it's sacreligious, especially here, to even talk about people having less kids. Population growth is declining in rich countries already, and in many middle-income ones. We don't have to convince people to have less kids as they already do if they're wealthy, educated and their kids don't die.

Exactly this. It has been shown time and time again that the surest way to reduce population growth is through education and increased social mobility. I think we can probably agree that it is the most ethical way as well.

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#36

Post by paxcoder »

aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

Animals aren't rational but rather instinct-driven. What would they lack other than say some elephant bone sites? I'd guess if you say put them where they used to be, they'd manage fine

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#37

Post by paxcoder »

truth4urts wrote: post #33
aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

Religion in that list makes what you're describing as progress.

Personally, I tend to stick to one account, and leave it up to the Lord of all (spiritual and physical)

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#38

Post by amelius »

aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

Not if they copied YouTube too.

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#39

Post by mkl »

na85 wrote: post #16
oh_sigh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of artificial womb, I'd imagine a natural womb of its closest extant relative may suffice. Sort of like how a horse can gestate a zebra embryo, but imagine the zebra was extinct.

They tried to "respawn" wooly mammoths in an elephant womb but it didn't work.

Source? Where would they get the embryo? It doesn't look like this has been tried yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_woolly_mammoth

Re: One man’s plan to resurrect the animal species we can’t save

#40

Post by est31 »

amelius wrote: post #38
aj3 wrote: post #32

Say humans went extinct and some alien species revived us from collected germ cells. Even if they could work out all the genetic quirks to make new population sustainable, 40000 years of social progress would be lost. Resurrected population wouldn't have benefit of any scientific advances, nor would they have any sense of rational thinking, philosophy, religion, social structures, not even language and writing. Human…

Not if they copied YouTube too.

... at the price of the human colony muttering the words "don't forget to comment and subscribe" as a farewell ritual.
Post reply on HN