[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / vrpg / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: tasmanian-tiger.jpg (148 KB, 1200x674)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
Are we ever getting it back?
>>
>>3440889
Yeah
>>
>>3440889
Yes
>>
>>3440889
No
>>
>>3440889
Nah
>>
No. Maybe in a few million years, another marsupial will evolve with convergent traits. Assuming we haven't killed off all marsupials before we ourselves die off.
>>
>>3440889
With global debt maybe not.
>>
>>3440889
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_M-SskpGi4
>>
>>3440889
I don't have any proof other than there being precedent for other species thought extinct to be rediscovered, but I am convinced it still exists somewhere on New Guinea.
>>
>>3441405
Of all the videos out there, this is the only one that gives me hope
>>
>>3440889
gotta stop banging them in the butt and start banging them in the cooter
>>
>>3440889
Yes, unless moralfags block de-extinction attempts because apparently putting funding into that magically stops conservation efforts for still existing endangered species somehow???
>>
>>3441556
Funding is limited. You need to compete for funding. Printing money can only go so far
>>
>>3441558
>guys the 0.0001% of GDP they're blowing on genetic engineering will directly be taken from the 0.002% of GDP we get instead of any other form of tax revenue
>>
>>3441558
I do understand that, but I find it to be very pessimistic to assume that said funding would be withdrawn from conservation efforts into de-extinction ones. Whose to say said funding can’t come from elsewhere? And how is reviving the Thylacine a less worthy cause for said money to go into than preserving still existing species?
>>
>>3441566
Less funding for other projects if a shit load of money goes into worthless dextinction projects. How do you not understand the concept of a limited pool of money? And why for the thylacine? There are thousands of other animals that people want to see revived for emotional purposes, so you will need to argue that the thylacine needs the millions of dollars and not any other extinct animal.
>>
File: thylacine_2016_09_20.gif (1.2 MB, 720x526)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB GIF
>>3440889
>getting it back
it never left, anon
>>
>>3441376
>we ourselves die off.
Wishful thinking. We're adaptable enough that as long as multicellular life exists on this planet our descendants will.
>>
>>3441376
>Assuming we haven't killed off all marsupials.
Pardon? I havent even seen a marsupial in my entire life, neither killed one
>>
>>3441965
Well get on with it then.
Lazy piece of shit, I have to do all the work here.
>>
sure we will. give it a decade or two. animal cloning is progressing nicely, and even without a suitable surrogate mother, artificial wombs are progressing nicely too. expect zoos full of recently extinct animals (and probably chinese fashion shows and medicine cabinets and dinner tables full of recently extinct animals too, given who has made most progress with animal cloning).
>>
>>3442063
since this is a thing and as soon as it's perfected it won't just be recently extinct animals with suitable subspecies surrogates, but every animal with decent soft tissue remains equally, what animals are you all looking forward to china cloning?
for me it's any of the mammal megafauna. give me an indicothere or any of the giant weird austalian shit, or a gigantopithecus and we'll see how conservative or over enthusiastic the size estimates were. i'd definitely be interested in seeing some ancient human cousins too (finally put an end to the awkward dancing around hair textures and skin colours in reconstructions with a conclusive answer) but there will probably be a lot more moral questions about reviving them. maybe not to china though.
>>
>>3441558
>Printing money can only go so far
Yet the fed can just summon 5 billion dollars in a day to bail out Boeing. Really makes me think
>>
>>3441744
> Less funding for other projects
Still yet to show me proof that said funding would be of significant detriment to other conservation projects. Why do you assume that this is where the money HAS to all come from. (P.S. You quite literally can just print more money but that’s besides the point)
>worthless dextinction
Somebody’s not sounding very impartial, explain to me exactly how these projects are ‘worthless’ friend
>why for the Thylacine
Because this is a thread about the Thylacine anon. I was just using it is an example. Also, because it’s widely acknowledged to be one of the main candidates for de-extinction, since it’s genome has already been sequenced. I also fail to see how the Thylacine would be competing much with other candidates for de-extinction, considering Mammoths, Passenger Pigeons etc. are all from the other side of the Globe.
>emotional purposes
I bet you cry about Pandas getting more conservation money than some gay species of worm that nobody cares about.
>>
>>3441376
>another marsupial
It's infinitely more likely that the dingo would just become more wolf like.
>>
>>3441794
that's a dingo



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.