161–170 of 208 posts
‘Son, you weren’t an accident, you were custom designed to be smarter than Einstein, faster than Bolt, with musical attitude rivaling Mozart.’
Sounds like a dystopian nightmare waiting to happen. Ban it now.
Why does this feel like they’ll eventually get to modifying humans and this is a first step. ‘Son, you weren’t an accident, you were custom designed to be smarter than Einstein, faster than Bolt, with musical attitude rivaling Mozart.’ Sounds like a dystopian nightmare waiting to happen. Ban it now.
Be neat if they opened a theme park on a remote island filled with de-extinct creatures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is this? In US the deer herds have grown so much out of control that they are worse than biblical locust - they trample and eat everything they find because there is no natural control of their numbers, until they eat everything they can find and starve. At least in theory wolves are meant to thin out their numbers. >>hat will a dire wolf do to livestock if we bring them back? Is a dire wolf any worse than regu…
Hunters are happy to take all the deer that they are legally allowed to. This is the fault of poor government management of hunting. Do some actual research on wolves. They will kill a dozen cows in a day in a pen and not eat any of it.
To be honest with you - I don't even know where I'd begin to look for stats like these - have you got any links I could read?
I was only really able to ask Gemini about it which seems to confirm that wolves generally don't kill animals for any reason other than sustenance but obviously LLM so I accept it might be fully wrong - https://g.co/gemini/share/e1ce79cd97de
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every project I've seen of theirs has been like this one: take an existing animal and tweak its genome very slightly to make it look kinda like the extinct one, then declare that they've brought back the extinct species. Never mind that it's still just a wolf with 14 very specific genes tweaked. That could be just a limitation of the current technology and one that they're working on fixing—maybe some day they plan t…
14 isn't enough for you, though it is enough to influence looks to the point that it does look different enough, but how many genes need to be changed for it to count, for you? There's some 40 million differences between humans and chimpanzees, but only about 700 that are unique to humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. If Disneyland claimed to be helping fix world problems like biodiversity loss and climate change, that would be worth criticizing as well.
Well, fortunately, the US won't be involved in fixing world problems any more now that USAID is out. Our dirty dollars shan't taint the virtuous poor any longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every project I've seen of theirs has been like this one: take an existing animal and tweak its genome very slightly to make it look kinda like the extinct one, then declare that they've brought back the extinct species. Never mind that it's still just a wolf with 14 very specific genes tweaked. That could be just a limitation of the current technology and one that they're working on fixing—maybe some day they plan t…
Plus, at a certain point we should probably ask what we're even doing here. At the same time and using the same ostensible "pro-environment" framework, we: 1. refuse to engage in biome modification to save soon-to-be-homeless species like the Axolotl, 2. are willing to go to great lengths to preserve existing biomes exactly as they are, such as opening up owl hunting permits to protect the western US's shittier owls…
The 'we' here is the issue. Who is we? The human race do not share complex holistic goals, organisational frameworks, or even aesthetic preferences. It's a miracle cooperation exists at all at transnational scale. The hope that it could serve functional purposes - rather than alternately facilitating the enrichment of the very few, and constraining the worst excesses of that wealth transfer - seems to beg the question, how?
'We' don't truly care about anything, there is no we once the net gets that wide. Don't get me started on 'should', a word that shakes its head in impotence.