My Concept for stopping the great human-made mass extinction

[wolf4life]

hey so im only in highschool....



what party can you join that means "I had to choose one and dont give a damn about politics" ?

[Dreamer]

And it's that kind of apathy that hurts us in politics. "They're gonna hurt us anyway, my vote doesn't count, protesting doesn't work" If more people went out there, stop being apathetic and got more politically involved, America would be a better place.

[Scott Gardener]

Getting back to the original premise, of genetically modifying endangered species to help them adapt in a hurry:

It's an interesting concept, and a slight variation of it might end up being done at some point maybe fifty years from now, when humans are just mature enough to feel confident about doing genetic engineering without thinking that it's too arrogant or "playing God." Unfortunately, our generation will end up telling them "I told you so" when it all goes horribly wrong, and the idea will probably be ultimately harshly criticized 70 or 80 years from now.

Ultimately, I think a lot of species living today will be remembered for some 200-300 years or so to come only as archives in data bases of gene sequences. Then, slowly and gradually, they'll be restored from exctinction by a more mature humanity with a better grasp of science, paired with a better respect for ecology and humanity's place within it. They'll be far more advanced and enlightened than most people today, and yet they will have less of this pretense of humans being more like God and less like other animals.

And, if I can get my way--no promises on this optimistic prediction--future humans will mix their own DNA with once extinct animals and not only bring back the extinct animals themselves, but also bring back their spirits, so to speak, through a physical and real version of what is today pretty much just a philosophical principle popularized by Internet subcultures--therianthropy, furries, and animal anthropomorphs.

The twentieth century saw tigers as animals in zoos. The twenty-first century knows them as logos for commercial products. The twenty-second century will see them as an extinct race of giant felines stored on Google Biology. The twenty-third century will recall legends of giant fire cats. The twenty-fourth century will have cloned tigers restored on the Mars Africa project. And, in the twenty-fifth century, tigers will be among the people working to save ordinary humans from extinction. Perhaps a hunch, but I think I could be right.

[wolf4life]

i would rather the animals be at peace then have them genetically reborn!

[theMoonlite]

I also agree with Silverclaw and W4L. People playing god isn't a good idea. there could be many many consequences for doing things like that. A few pros maybe, but all in all, not that great IMO.

Exactly. We've already seen what happened when people "play god" in Jurassic Park.
H'oh boy, if we continue with this mass extinction plan...I just don't support it.

[MattSullivan]

It is FOOLISH to think we humans can have such a big impact on the planet. You've bought into a HUGE lie. But, just in case I'm wrong, and there IS something to worry about, we are too small andinsignifigant to stop it. So...

*Raises a glass of beer and fills up his SUV with irreplaceable fossil fuels.* Enjoy life...while you can. I am. And i refuse to waste a SINGLE moment worrying about the environment. I already gave at the office.

[cumulusprotagonist]

Hey Matt! What about cleaning the air so everyone can breathe again?
Breathing is nice is it not? Is it not nice, to not have mucus clogging up your throat and keeping you up at night as you sit in fear that it will prevent you from dealing with a class that starts at 9:00 A. M.? I can recognize the difference of the air I breathed on vacation and the air I am breathing that may or may not be polluted by the nearby chemical plant. It would be chaotic if people were forced to stop driving, but why not spend some money on research to pump the air with chemicals that will clean it instead of pollute it?

That it all.

[cumulusprotagonist]

Actually that is not all.

How can you not change the world?

(Take some time and think about this and then continue on. A teacher stumped a whole classroom when he asked them this.)
























If people are so insignificant then how come we have nuclear capabilities and do you think that a nuclear holocaust would have an insignificant impact on the planet?

You are on the extreme end on the opposite side of this arguement. The true answer usually lies somewhere around the middle.

If you pick at something long enough it will break. Nothing is indestructable. At the same time, even though you can not repair all things, somethings can be repaired even if you think it is already too late.

[wolf4life]

I also agree with Silverclaw and W4L. People playing god isn't a good idea. there could be many many consequences for doing things like that. A few pros maybe, but all in all, not that great IMO.

Exactly. We've already seen what happened when people "play god" in Jurassic Park.
H'oh boy, if we continue with this mass extinction plan...I just don't support it.

lol...that was a movie

[JoshuaMadoc]

I pity any human that tries to play God. We can't even turn into ghosts, for the love of god.

AND.

I also detest anyone who thinks that all scientists are evil stereotypical Umbrella Inc. CEOs with half-assed intentions. Lay off the T-Viruses, guys.

[Doruk Golcu]

scientists estimate they will create new life within ten years.

They are already playing God.

however altering existing life forms is a whole other can of worms, and for many is was simply a matter of size, reproduction rate, and behavior that allows them not to simply adapt but in some cases to thrive.

when you alter one thing in something it always has a dominio effect that may change other features unpredictably. Like what happened with the altered corn.

and they will go down in flames when the animal sucks a** and cant live or something....


stupid scientists.....


and dont say anything against me on scientists...

i have heard it all before

Geez, thanks. I love you too

[Dreamer]

Actually that is not all.

How can you not change the world?

(Take some time and think about this and then continue on. A teacher stumped a whole classroom when he asked them this.)
























If people are so insignificant then how come we have nuclear capabilities and do you think that a nuclear holocaust would have an insignificant impact on the planet?

You are on the extreme end on the opposite side of this arguement. The true answer usually lies somewhere around the middle.

If you pick at something long enough it will break. Nothing is indestructable. At the same time, even though you can not repair all things, somethings can be repaired even if you think it is already too late.

I can't beleive that I'm saying this, but emoboy is right.

[theMoonlite]

It is FOOLISH to think we humans can have such a big impact on the planet. You've bought into a HUGE lie. But, just in case I'm wrong, and there IS something to worry about, we are too small andinsignifigant to stop it.

Have you heard of this quote before?

"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future". It's quite a famous quote now, said by Galadriel from Lord of the Rings.
I believe this is true, and anyone can make a difference in this world. Look at what Steve Irwin managed to accomplish in his lifetime. It doesn't matter if you like him or not, just think about what he accomplished.

"In 2001, Irwin was awarded the Centenary Medal for his "service to global conservation and to Australian tourism". In 2004, he was recognised as Tourism Export of the Year. He was also nominated in 2004 for Australian of the Year, an honour which was won by Australian Cricket Captain Steve Waugh. Doubts were cast over his nomination when the "baby Bob" incident, in which Steve fed a crocodile whilst holding his infant son, occurred in January of that year. Shortly before his death, he was to be named an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland's School of Integrative Biology. In May 2007, the Rwandan Government announced that it would name a baby gorilla after Steve Irwin as a tribute to his work in wildlife conservation. The Crocodile Rehabilitation and Research Centre in Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary was named by the Kerala government after late Steve Irwin."

There are countless other things this man achieved in his lifetime, but the fact of the matter is, he is just one man. This one man proved that he could make a difference, and his work has gone on to help thousands of animals over the world. Probably even more. It doesn't matter who you are, what background you have, or what place you come from, anyone can make a difference. Do not doubt that, ever.

[theMoonlite]

And why should nature cater to humans, anyhow?

Exactly. Another quote goes like this: "We are guests of Nature - BEHAVE!".
We should be adapting to nature, not adapting things that can do that for themselves.

[wolf4life]

scientists estimate they will create new life within ten years.

They are already playing God.

however altering existing life forms is a whole other can of worms, and for many is was simply a matter of size, reproduction rate, and behavior that allows them not to simply adapt but in some cases to thrive.

when you alter one thing in something it always has a dominio effect that may change other features unpredictably. Like what happened with the altered corn.

and they will go down in flames when the animal sucks a** and cant live or something....


stupid scientists.....


and dont say anything against me on scientists...

i have heard it all before

Geez, thanks. I love you too

*backs away slowly*



anyway...

and no nature shouldnt catter to us but what does it matter?

there are always going to be people who are totally like "whateveR" on nature and destroy it...


NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOMEONE IS AGAINST IT! People will cut down trees, destroy the beauty that used to be the earth, and polute everything else

[Scott Gardener]

We often hear the expression "playing God" to describe something perceived as overly ambitious or something that by argument should not be attempted because it is beyond human capability or privilage. But, I do have to respond with the question of what does or doesn't constitute "playing God"?

Being a doctor, I get to face this phrase at work from time to time. The statement itself is a bit abstract and does not itself constitute an argument. (This is true regardless of one's religion. Devout Fundamentalist Christians and die-hard atheists alike would have to agree that the statement of "playing God" is an emotionally charged one rather than one in and of itself criticizing any specific premise.) Rather, it is the intention behind it--that actions that "play God" are those that attempt to engage in acts of engineering, usually biological in nature, that are of such a complex nature that the full consequences of doing so are beyond what can be predicted using present day knowledge--that is, only a God would know what would happen if it's done, and therefore only God should consider doing it in the first place.

But, naturally occuring evolution is very random. If God is directing it, He or She is doing so in a manner as to make it appear to be going on its own. Granted, over time there appears to be a sense of direction. I'll avoid the evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, as that's beside the point and a sure magnet for flame warfare. (Why not ask what constitutes a Furry while I'm at it?) The evidence at hand is that evolution is slow, but it is happening.

Human endevours, however, are fast--too fast for evolution to keep pace, and thus the mass extinction problem. There are two solutions that come quickly to mind. Slow down human endevours or speed up evolution. The problem is, now is not the best time to slow down human endevours, as we can't afford to stay in our present state for very long. If we stopped progress now and maintained a status quo, we'll kill off ourselves and the rest of the biosphere inside of a millennium. Don't worry, as I sincerely doubt very many people will be willing to go along with not inventing anything, so we still have a very good chance of not doing that. The alternative then is to speed up evolution.

I personally maintain that it's not playing God to advocate modifying evolution.

It's playing God to assume that one is controlling or mastering evolution instead of working with it. It's not so much what one does as how one does it. A mind set that acknowledges the sense of partnership with the Earth and with the science that makes the planet work will be more capable of considering cause and effect. A mind set bent on mastery and dominion will instead assume the Earth and the laws of science will either play along or get beaten into submission. Abuse and slavery may work within archaic human cultures, but it will not work against facts, data, and science. Global warming doesn't stop the moment a candidate is elected or one particular product is taken off the shelves. You can negotiate with Iran regarding developing nuclear technologies. You can't negotiate with the polar caps about melting past a certain temperature.

I also find it strange that so many people celebrate an idea that humans are "made in God's image" and yet still use the "playing God" argument. It's a very adulescent sort of mixed-message. The more mature approach would be to acknowledge that there's a lot of qualities that we as humans have right now that are very un-Godlike, such as our mortality and succeptability to disease, and work towards rectifying these flaws through molecular engineering rather than present day patches with drugs and surgery. Then, maybe we could be a bit closer towards living up to such a tall claim.

Granted, the potential for disaster with such actions is pretty enormous. But, let's face it. The potential for disaster with no action is absolute.

[Dreamer]

And why should nature cater to humans, anyhow?

Exactly. Another quote goes like this: "We are guests of Nature - BEHAVE!".
We should be adapting to nature, not adapting things that can do that for themselves.

Well DUH! In fact, that would be the ideal situation. But the American people as a whole don't give as s*** enought about the environment (only thirty seven percent say it is a major issue, and the sad thing is that that's an increase from a while ago) to do anything about it, the government is in the pockets of those corporations doing the raping of the earth, and the people who live in those places and are destroying those areas (like those farmers in the rainforest burning it down) want to keep destroying it so they can survive and stop being poor (Which, although reasonable for them, it brings my piss to a boil that they are being so selfish, and it makes me even more angry that I have to choose between raping the earth and letting the poor live in misery). SO we're probably not going to avert the mass extinction before it's too late. SO taht's why I came up with that Plan B.

[MattSullivan]

You're quoting Lord Of The Rings in the context of a science discussion? *yeesh*

[Kaebora]

You're quoting Lord Of The Rings in the context of a science discussion? *yeesh*

Hey... they did the same thing in Stargate Atlantis a couple of times.

[LightPaws]

NO GENETIC ALTERING!

First endangered animals and trying to save them, then BOWs that will escape and infect the world with their zombie-ness! Last thing we need is a mutant wolf with tenticals sticking out of it's back.

[DarkShadow]

I proposed this because we're probably not goign to save all those animals from extinction because of public apathy, the poor people's lack of willingness to help (And, although it's sad, this is completely justifiable because they shouldn't remain poor) and the fact that the Megacorporatons poluting our environment own us and will do everything in their power to destroy the environment. I heard the tiger is going to go extinct soon.

I think I'll go cry now

TIGERS? are you talking about certain types of tiger or the tigers in general?

Anyway, some of my friends brought up an interesting point. They said that thousdands of years from now when common animals in our time are extinct, they could just be a legendary animal to them. I don't know about you guys, but some of that kind of makes sence. Of course, there would be recorded history of the animals. Unless is the documents had been destroyed over time...I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there

[wolf4life]

NO GENETIC ALTERING!

First endangered animals and trying to save them, then BOWs that will escape and infect the world with their zombie-ness! Last thing we need is a mutant wolf with tenticals sticking out of it's back.

ummm....


1. If zombies took over the world.....GET A SHOTGUN!!!

and

2. What if it was a nice wolfie mutant?

[LightPaws]

NO GENETIC ALTERING!

First endangered animals and trying to save them, then BOWs that will escape and infect the world with their zombie-ness! Last thing we need is a mutant wolf with tenticals sticking out of it's back.

ummm....


1. If zombies took over the world.....GET A SHOTGUN!!!

and

2. What if it was a nice wolfie mutant?

Shotguns run out of ammo, blades don't.

I take it you didn't get the Resident Evil reference?

[wolf4life]

lol...i have resident evil

I know exactly what your talking about....

the dogs are a real pain in the virtual a** though

[LightPaws]

lol...i have resident evil

I know exactly what your talking about....

the dogs are a real pain in the virtual a** though

lol, Yea. But seriously, shotguns are fun, but they run out of ammo. Blades don't. They do however, get lodged inside your enemy leaving you vunerable to attack by one of it's friends.