That is "your" criteria.
Here is the definition.
View attachment 70550
You are arguing an argument and points that are even being discussed.
Also, humans are apart of nature whether you like it or not and ability to evolve and assist and correct mistakes from the past are present now.
You can't seriously say that animals going extinct - animals that would still be fine and dandy, had humans not poached the shit out of them - solely because of human selfishness were "survival of the fittest". I can't agree with that.
I can agree with assisting and correcting mistakes from the past, but right now? Right now, I'd rather save the biomes we can save (and given the state of, just as one example, the Amazon rainforest and the lack of care given to it, I'd rather save the tens-of-thousands of endemic species of animals, plants, and fungi there that will go extinct, should Brazil carry on what it's doing - and that's just one example out of hundreds of ecosystems that we are currently fucking up. Humanity may be nothing more than a higher evolution of animal, but we have not been part of nature for some time; we evolved far past it.), and if you want to reintroduce a previously extinct animal, make it one that would've been just fine had we not hunted it to extinction. There is no need to introduce dire wolves and make a bad problem even worse. They died a long time ago for a reason that wasn't because of us.
As was stated in Pet Semetary: "Dead is dead." As was stated succinctly in The Mortuary Assistant, "Help the living...and let the dead rest."
I obviously have problems with your point of view which is why we are discussing this now. Plainly to your face?
Those are words that people tell each other in person, not online, not to a disabled confused person. There is no glory or satisfaction of making someone like that realize they made a big mistake realizing in person conversations isn't the internet. However the soy boys and everyone sue crazy has put a stop to much of the respect people once had for another.
I said what I said more politely to you than I was going to say it. I asked you to give me the reasons why you had issues. Maybe you have given me those reasons because you've apparently studied this, and if so, I apologize for snapping. But I've done a fair bit of research as well (have been into the study of animals since I was old enough to read and my maternal grandmother once worked at the St. Louis Zoo and taught me a lot of what she knew). I may be disabled, but I'm
far from confused when it comes to animal conservation and animals as a whole.
On the prioritization of what should be revived first, what projects do you think actually carry the banner for funding? A Carrier Pigeon or a Woolly Mammoth? A DoDo bird or a Dire Wolf? Specially the Woolly Mammoth is literally the banner carrier for every other species, regardless if you like that or not, that is what is going to make all the come back of all these other animals and provide further genetic bio diversity for current endangered species that are alive currently but are experiencing genetic bottlenecking. And that is literally the key to keeping what's currently alive here and healthy.
Shit I want to see a Thylacine, DoDo, Carolina Parrot, you like otters? Japanese Otter, Aurochs, Eastern Elk, Elephant Bird and Rhinoceros's, a couple of Eagles.
Completely agreed on the bold. Disagree on the latter. If scientists were going to bring
any extinct animal back to life and given proof, it would've gotten funding up the ass. You have funding for all types of things nowadays from all sorts of corporations. The thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) would've gotten just as much funding as a woolly mammoth. The northern white rhinoceros would've gotten just as much funding as a dire wolf. I agree with bringing back animals that have been extinct, just not the ones for that long, and not the ones that haven't died out because of humanity. I have not seen any proof where these scientists of this corporation are going to bring back anything other than woolly mammoths and - as of now - dire wolves at the time of the article. Other than those two long extinct animals? Nada.
This thought process is exactly why things like the reintroduction of wolves or not being able to hunt bears in certain areas has wrecked the local biom because people are "animal lovers" who vote horrible policies into law and literally know shit about what actually works in reality.
So, you want the deer to overrun the area (particularly Yellowstone, where the wolves have been reintroduced) and destroy the grazing grounds of other animals, including and especially themselves? The very reason why wolves have been reintroduced to certain areas is to help with an exploding deer population. It has not wrecked the local biomes: only the farmers and ranchers way out in Bumfuck, Nowhere, and if they hadn't prepared for
anything to attack their livestock, whether it's a wolf, a bunch of coyotes, a pack of wild dogs, etc., and made plans to prevent it from happening? Then they must be
really shitty at their job.
Have they thought of where to put the dire wolf pups, in particular? Which biome do you want them to destroy, hmm? Because all they're going to do is either die or die while wrecking whatever biome they're put in. What happens when those dire wolf pups start to get old enough to breed? Where are you going to put them all? What are you going to do with them?
That's what I am against. It's not fair to the pups, it's not fair to the animals where they're going to put them, and it feels like a colossal waste of time and resources that
could've been used to revive animals that would've been fine had we not destroyed them.
