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

What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#81

Post by tsimionescu »

shp0ngle wrote: post #60
farisjarrah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently it's become so commonplace among pets that my dog's veterinary insurance policy specifically has an exclusion saying that our pet insurance does not cover cloning. I just googled "Dog Cloning" and there were a bunch of results offering the service.

Oh wow that really is a thing! Why be sad for your dog’s death when you can just clone him.

I loved my chosen. How then could I accept the day she died? So I took from her body a single cell - perhaps to love her again.

--Commisionner Pravin Lal

(Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, when finishing The Cloning Vats secret project)

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#82

Post by nobleach »

farisjarrah wrote: post #44
shp0ngle wrote: post #34

I remember in the 90s, when they cloned Polly (or Molly? I don’t remember), people predicted crazy future where we keep cloning animals and one day maybe humans. I don’t hear much about cloning recently. What happened?

Apparently it's become so commonplace among pets that my dog's veterinary insurance policy specifically has an exclusion saying that our pet insurance does not cover cloning. I just googled "Dog Cloning" and there were a bunch of results offering the service.

Wait... this was RePet from Total Recall.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#83

Post by jvanderbot »

moloch-hai wrote: post #63
VaxWithSex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sauropods are Saurischian not Ornitishian. But you are right, we want them too. The vw sized heart was in a dinosaur show when I was a kid. Either David Norman or Bob Baker stood below a brachiosaur and told the audience about the heart. wow 30 years. Time flies.

Right, not ornithischian. For those in the back, sauropods, despite appearances , run with the tyrannosaurs and birds, not the triceratopses and hadrosaurs. Or anyway walk. Or did. My solution to their energy problem is eusociality: big Mama stays put and is fed by the small fry who range far and wide. They also tend her eggs. She eats their first-level output, then they eat her better-digested leavings. The digestio…

Well that was the most interesting sci-fi-that-might-be-real I've read all week.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#84

Post by downrightmike »

Tyrannosaur wrote: post #79
chasil wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, keeping such creatures alive would require facilities with enriched oxygen. If the large ones escaped, they would suffocate. "...large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28." Volcanic activity in the Cretaceous enabled these hi…

Wait, why would carbon dioxide levels have any effect on wildfires more than, say nitrogen? For wildfires, I would expect the proportion of oxygen to matter much more than other gasses not involved in combustion. Perhaps there's a difference in humidity levels, and therefore specific heat of the air?

Nitrogen is inert. Combustion doesn't need nitrogen. It just basically fills space.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#85

Post by downrightmike »

vkou wrote: post #75
chasil wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, keeping such creatures alive would require facilities with enriched oxygen. If the large ones escaped, they would suffocate. "...large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28." Volcanic activity in the Cretaceous enabled these hi…

Why would a 2% CO2 atmosphere combat wildfires? It's a non-reacting gas, but so is nitrogen... And yet, wildfires still happen, despite our 79% nitrogen atmosphere.

Venus has a CO2 atmosphere, so the upper bar is very high.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#87

Post by downrightmike »

rrgok wrote: post #64
citizenpaul wrote: post #14

The dinosaurs lived in an incomprehensibly different world. From the food and nutrition to the very air they were breathing which we only have vague ideas about. That means the first several generations at the very least would suffer and die from various nutrition, toxicity and environment issues. Even after all that got figured out the dinosaurs would likely have be confined to some small controlled environment righ…

"Basically if we bring back dinosaurs it will be to torture them for our amusement and curiosity". Just a thought experiment, I hope I won't be downvoted to hell. Isn't this the predicament of all beings? You might say, that some people enjoy life, but at that point you should 1) Confirm that all beings are not answering with a Stockholm Syndrome 2) Confirm what is the subjective experience of the dinosaur

If the Antarctic thaws, it would be probably the best place for them.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#89

Post by PeterisP »

TheMaskedCoder wrote: post #69
DonHopkins wrote: post #29

Bringing back dinosaurs is a lot like using regular expressions: Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll bring back dinosaurs." Now they have two problems.

Suddenly, I am very curious about what problem could possibly inspire bringing back dinosaurs as a potential solution...

The problem of not having dinosaurs for your theme park.

Re: What would it take to bring back the dinosaurs?

#90

Post by Tyrannosaur »

downrightmike wrote: post #84
Tyrannosaur wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, why would carbon dioxide levels have any effect on wildfires more than, say nitrogen? For wildfires, I would expect the proportion of oxygen to matter much more than other gasses not involved in combustion. Perhaps there's a difference in humidity levels, and therefore specific heat of the air?

Nitrogen is inert. Combustion doesn't need nitrogen. It just basically fills space.

As far as wildfires go, so is carbon dioxide. CO2 is not a typical reactant of combustion.
Post reply on HN