# De-extinction



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

we're close to cloning mammoths, passenger pigeons and other extinct species back to life, in less than 50 years even. but what are peoples thoughts on it? should we? should we not? will it affect the current ecosystem, etc..


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

I read somewhere recently that they're working on bringing back the Tasmanian Tiger. Apparently they've enough DNA now to make it happen.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

i'd honestly be fine with that, but then you hear about people wanting to bring back megalanias etc...
[doublepost=1514883447,1514883415][/doublepost]and in the wild too!


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> i'd honestly be fine with that, but then you hear about people wanting to bring back megalanias etc...
> [doublepost=1514883447,1514883415][/doublepost]and in the wild too!


Yeah, some things should remain extinct... Things that we hunted to extinction out of ignorance should be brought back and things that went extinct inadvertently thanks to human intervention (for instance, introducing the Cane toad) but things that died out via natural selection, should remain in the history books. In my opinion.


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

A very interesting topic. I can understand genetic cloning to perfect a cow/sheep or chicken. I think it will go that way soon enough, not that i agree with it. But too clone something u know nothing about from many years ago. U are also cloning all the imperfections that the sample came from. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

I think we should only "de-extinct" species that were extant in the past few hundred years if we were to release them back into the wild, so that they don't change current ecosystems too much. Stuff like thylacines. Also some of the Pleistocene megafaunas such as diprotodon and macropus titan would be interesting for research purposes, but not to release into the wild. And things that went extinct because of humans. The main thing stopping us from "de-extincting" native animals is the lack of genetic material to work with, there aren't any tundras or anything that would preserve animals well enough here. Heaps of other stuff, though, but yeah...


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

women complain about birthing an dyet they're gonna birth the mammoth from an asian elephant, something x10 smaller when mature!


----------



## GBWhite (Jan 2, 2018)

No. And what we should seriously consider is controlling the human population.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

i agree, i honestly wouldn't mind if the rule that happened in china happened all over, way too many humans already.


----------



## cagey (Jan 2, 2018)

I am not sure I want them bringing back a passenger pigeon X mammoth.... a dangerous precedent....especially if it got loose.


----------



## vampstorso (Jan 2, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> i agree, i honestly wouldn't mind if the rule that happened in china happened all over, way too many humans already.



Hmm you might reconsider if you knew the extent of that rule and how it was enforced, or saw a doco like the dying rooms of what happens to unwanted baby girls as a result. 

Horrific is an understatement. 


I agree humans are over populated....but that "rule" was really just a slaughter. 



Anyway, 
I'd be open to the idea of cloning species we have made extinct, but over all it probably isn't the best idea given we're very good at overlooking unforseen issues


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

Lol! reading a comma goes a long way


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 2, 2018)

cagey said:


> I am not sure I want them bringing back a passenger pigeon X mammoth.... a dangerous precedent....especially if it got loose.


yeah imagine a flying mammoth dropping a load on you? I know they say a bird sh!t7ing on you is good luck but seriously? I don't want that much luck


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

GBWhite said:


> No. And what we should seriously consider is controlling the human population.


I watched a very interesting documentary going back about 12 months ago now where this person, some highly acclaimed and respected something or other stated matter of factly that Australia is already grossly overpopulated and that this country alone can currently only comfortably accommodate 10 million people, less than half the current populatioin. I think he's bang on the money too given that 2/3 of the continent is virtually uninhabitable. So many people go on about how Australia has the least people per square kilometer in the world and that we can easily take in millions of refugees etc... there's a reason for that... because how many of us live in the Simpson desert? The coastlines of Australia are packed like sardines and the vast interior is sparsely populaed.

Australia is overpopulated.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

also, i do know, they were killed. but if anyone is to be called selfish, sick, etc it's the parents for having a second child. yes there's another way that's more humane that could work but i forgot the name, it was what i was going to say at first too.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

vampstorso said:


> Hmm you might reconsider if you knew the extent of that rule and how it was enforced, or saw a doco like the dying rooms of what happens to unwanted baby girls as a result.
> 
> Horrific is an understatement.
> 
> ...


Not to mention that the male to female ratio in China now is like 150:1 and they're talking about, (I read this a while back) introducing new laws where a man must share his wife so that other men can marry... wt actual f?!


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

GBWhite said:


> No. And what we should seriously consider is controlling the human population.


I'm thinking closing our borders would be a good start. We seem to let people in from countries that have been fighting with themselves since long before this country was colonized. If they can't get along with there own people in there own country, how the hell is bringing them here going to help ? More chance of them ruining our way of life. I understand if there bringing over skilled people that can add too the country. But the majority are unskilled and go straight on government payments or the dole. My brother is from England and has a trade, he finished his schooling in the top 2% in the country. It cost him $30,000 too come here and was only allowed if i sponsored him and i supported him. 
Figure that one out !

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Bl69aze (Jan 2, 2018)

Just give more things to people who want to hunt and Chinese will claim all the reincarnated species are “magic healing properties “

I would be all for it, but the eco system
Has evolved on without them  they’d just go extinct again


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

i don't think they would, lets say adding megalanias to the outback, instead they'd destroy millions of other creatures, and then potentially die out again due to disease.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

Bl69aze said:


> Just give more things to people who want to hunt and Chinese will claim all the reincarnated species are “magic healing properties “
> 
> I would be all for it, but the eco system
> Has evolved on without them  they’d just go extinct again


Like rhino horn... what a joke... grind your bloody fingernails up and eat it, it's keratin, the same stuff! #chinesemedicinefail


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 2, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> I watched a very interesting documentary going back about 12 months ago now where this person, some highly acclaimed and respected something or other stated matter of factly that Australia is already grossly overpopulated and that this country alone can currently only comfortably accommodate 10 million people, less than half the current populatioin. I think he's bang on the money too given that 2/3 of the continent is virtually uninhabitable. So many people go on about how Australia has the least people per square kilometer in the world and that we can easily take in millions of refugees etc... there's a reason for that... because how many of us live in the Simpson desert? The coastlines of Australia are packed like sardines and the vast interior is sparsely populaed.
> 
> Australia is overpopulated.


you've got that 100% Kev,I don't always agree with what you say but right on the money here,1 thing I've always thought is instead of pumping our waste out to sea and killing the creatures who live there,why don't we pump it into the desert to try and recreate a fertile place.It's a scientific fact that green spaces attract more rain so why don't we create more greenery?


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

oh buh then it wonh worrk!!must be endangrd mammal horn!!


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

Animals like megalania will never be introduced back into the wild if they were to be de-extinct-ed. They also wouldn't look much like what they used to because they would have to get a related varanus species gravid so it would pretty much be megalania x another varanus species, but I'm not sure how it would work with reptiles.


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> Like rhino horn... what a joke... grind your bloody fingernails up and eat it, it's keratin, the same stuff! #chinesemedicinefail


U seen some of them toe nails, they aint using there own. There's are like emu claws

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

tha'ts not how it works, it'd be the semen and embryo of an artifically created megalania, so it would use other species to feel in the gap, the birther wouldn't change ti's look.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> oh buh then it wonh worrk!!must be endangrd mammal horn!!


Or unicorn horn... that was later discovered to be from a narwhal... lol Looking back at history, you gotta laugh!


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

also, their toe nails look more effective than cassowaries at kicking a$$


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

But thats how they would artificially create the megalania in the first place


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

yes, they'd combine the dna. but that doesn't mean with that species, and even then, the mother of the artificially created embryo doesn't have anything to do with the looks of the offspring which is the megalania, as it's not the mother, just used to birth the animal.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

There's one thing that should definitely be brought back from extinction... maybe then the world wouldn't be so effed up!


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

ok yeah you're right


----------



## Wally (Jan 2, 2018)

Humans have done, and continue to do the worst by this planet. There are plenty of species currently on the verge of extinction.

Why would we want to bring things back if we can't look after what we currently have in our world?


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

Wally said:


> Humans have done, and continue to do the worst by this planet.


I agree, the rate at which deforestation is occurring is mind blowing.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

So that we can work out what went wrong with those and figure out how to prevent extinctions happening again.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

oh look a tree that will help and does have over a hundred things living on it? let's chop it down and every other tree here that provide home for thousands of creatures to make room for like 10 selfish dbags, makes sense, ywp!


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

We will only kill them again 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Foozil (Jan 2, 2018)

Would we? Surely after the first time scientists and zoos would breed them and get some healthy populations going. A lot of frog species went extinct very soon after first being discovered, but now that we know what killed them we can prevent it.


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

To bring something back that has become extinct in the last 50 years is a different story to an animal that existed over 2 million years ago. Global temperature being one, its survival is based on its DNA. 
Survival is a part of evolving and i would think missing out on 2 million years of evolution could have a fair say in its survival 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tobe404 (Jan 2, 2018)

Foozil said:


> Animals like megalania will never be introduced back into the wild if they were to be de-extinct-ed. They also wouldn't look much like what they used to because they would have to get a related varanus species gravid so it would pretty much be megalania x another varanus species, but I'm not sure how it would work with reptiles.



Apparently Lacie's are the closest living relative to Megalania.

It would be nice if we could bring animals back that became extinct because of our intervention...

Not sure how i feel about others that were wiped out from the World/Nature/Evolution itself though.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

i'd think komodos would be, but lacies are the closest thing to komodos currently soo not too far fetched.


----------



## Tobe404 (Jan 2, 2018)

I was just going off a Doco I saw recently featuring Bryan Fry - About Megelania - Monsters Resurrected Giant Lizard.


----------



## Sheldoncooper (Jan 2, 2018)

Believed to be egg layers however we're talking about an animal that is probably a minimum of 20 times the body mass of a lacie or komodo. Surely if your putting that DNA inside a lacie the egg couldn't survive the time needed to develop 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

i completely forgot it was an egg! bahaha, well it wouldn't be done the same as mammoths then.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 2, 2018)

Bring back Madagascar's Elephant bird.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 2, 2018)

so basically smaller terror bird? moa would be cool tho


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 3, 2018)

Two word answer why not : Jurassic Park.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

Jurassic Park is impossible


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 3, 2018)

What they did in the movie with DNA is exactly the same as what they are doing with the mammoth and the thylacine. My point is look how that turned out. Scientists are only doing it because they can, and want the glory of being the first. Wait and see, they will clone mammoths, then breed them for food production. 

Over-population of humans will destroy this planet. Already food production is stretched, drinking water is scarce for large parts of the world, and pollution of various kinds is killing ecosystems.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

Only problem is there is no dinosaur DNA left (apart from birds)... I agree with you, most of them would be doing it for glory, but there are some scientific values in de-extinction-ing prehistoric animals (if it were possible)


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 3, 2018)

By all means recreate the DNA for study and research, but there is no scientific benefit in recreating the actual animal. The negatives have been clearly pointed out above on this thread. It's a slippery slope to say they will do just one, in a controlled environment. First the mammoth, then what next? I seem to recall reading they had the DNA of the sabretooth tiger too.
Let's worry about what we've already got, and make sure they don't become extinct.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

the reason the passenger pigeon is being revived is to help the oaks and such where it traditionally lived, as the passenger pigeon and the trees worked together, and currently the forests are just getting smaller and smaller, so no, not everything is for glory, a lot is though.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported Tuatara is right. A lot of our native dasyurids that have gone extinct in the past few hundred years were helping with the germination of seeds and keeping insect populations down, and now those ecosystems are falling apart.


----------



## Stompsy (Jan 3, 2018)

Im probably way off, but when you clone an animal, doesn’t it begin its life with any imperfections from the DNA it was created from? And also, doesn’t it start it’s life from the age of said DNA? (Or the age of the animal it was extracted from)

I don’t see how this would be beneficial in any way. And if they did recreate enough of a species, how far would the genetics stretch for any beneficial breeding program anyway?

I think we should start focusing a lot more of our energies on fixing what we have broken, rather than bringing more life into a planet we are literally destroying.


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 3, 2018)

Agree, Stompsy. Like saving the world's bee populations.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

no, as they're making an embryo, the only reason it's really called cloning is that they have to use the dna of the mammoths that were frozen, and no, they won't only use the mammal dna so it should be fine.
[doublepost=1514934338,1514934243][/doublepost]but yes, i think we should focus on current events rather than reviving/cloning mammoths, but i see it as a bit selfish to expect everyone to only work on current problems.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

I don't see why if we had the option to get those extinct species back we wouldn't? Sure, we are still killing other species, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to bring back others.

And yeah I do agree that we should only focus on recently extinct animals if we were to de-extinct animals


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 3, 2018)

I saw a piece the other week about the thylacine project. They said it was going to cost billions. Billions better spent elsewhere, IMO.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

wait, if some smaller reptiles were revived and were native from here and cloned here, could we keep them or no? if not then NO to spending billions. if yes still NO to spending billions.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

Good point... but if we could and it didn't cost that much then sure.


----------



## Stompsy (Jan 3, 2018)

Foozil said:


> I don't see why if we had the option to get those extinct species back we wouldn't? Sure, we are still killing other species, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to bring back others.
> 
> And yeah I do agree that we should only focus on recently extinct animals if we were to de-extinct animals


IMO, the two main reasons we shouldn’t are pretty obvious. 

One, we can’t even look after what we have on the planet now.... and two, even if some ecosystems would benefit from said cloning, how many would it be detrimental to? We can’t guarantee that introducing a once extinct animal back into an ecosystem it was once native to, wouldn’t turn said ecosystem completely on its head. We just shouldn’t play god.


----------



## Foozil (Jan 3, 2018)

I just don't see how the fact that we can't look after what we have now (which isn't entirely true) is a good reason for not bringing back what we have already killed.


----------



## Stompsy (Jan 3, 2018)

pinefamily said:


> I saw a piece the other week about the thylacine project. They said it was going to cost billions. Billions better spent elsewhere, IMO.


I would absolutely love to see the thylacine recreated and placed back into its natural habitat, especially considering we completely wiped it out in a very short amount of time. And we did it out of greed. But you are completely right in saying it’s money that could be used elsewhere and have a much bigger impact. Put those funds into fixing our planet.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Kind of off topic. Why does the above poll say it closes on 2/1/2028? Was that a typo or does it have some relevance to you @Imported_tuatara?


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Stompsy said:


> Im probably way off, but when you clone an animal, doesn’t it begin its life with any imperfections from the DNA it was created from? And also, doesn’t it start it’s life from the age of said DNA? (Or the age of the animal it was extracted from)
> 
> I don’t see how this would be beneficial in any way. And if they did recreate enough of a species, how far would the genetics stretch for any beneficial breeding program anyway?
> 
> I think we should start focusing a lot more of our energies on fixing what we have broken, rather than bringing more life into a planet we are literally destroying.


Well, and I'm just spitballing here... couldn't they be created much the same as super mice were created? Then the limited gene pool wouldn't matter so much??


----------



## vampstorso (Jan 3, 2018)

Weren't they hoping the Tassie tiger could combat cats and foxes? That could be beneficial...
But again, I'm sure there are consequences we can't even fathom yet.

Also, wouldn't the animals end up like cheetahs? All inbred and full of defects from the very limited population.
Perhaps they've overcome that now, but previously cheetahs had all deformed front limbs etc from inbreeding when their population declined so terribly.


It does seem a bit weird to spend money bringing animals back rather than on current conservation as others have said...but I guess I'm the cases of symbiotic relationships mentioned, it can make sense too.


Also interesting people think reptiles are from dinosaurs when they're not. Only birds are, in the true sense of the word.
I make this statement about the general public, not this forum. I know many on here are highly interested in such things and realise this.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

vampstorso said:


> Weren't they hoping the Tassie tiger could combat cats and foxes? That could be beneficial...
> But again, I'm sure there are consequences we can't even fathom yet.
> 
> Also, wouldn't the animals end up like cheetahs? All inbred and full of defects from the very limited population.
> ...


Where is the information about reptiles not being related to dinosaurs from? As far as I know they are from dinosaurs and this was stated by Steve Wilson at a talk he did recently.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

they are from? LMAO, not to be rude, but...No. there was lizards during, and before the dinosaurs. did you know monitors came from mosasaurs, and snakes came from either early monitors or late mosasaurs? and mosasaurs are marine reptiles, that lived with the dinosaurs. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, mostly small raptors, as if you see what accurate raptors look like they look very similar, both smallish, have feathers, etc.
[doublepost=1514938447,1514938373][/doublepost]related to them? that's a different story, but hey, we're also quite closely related to bone fish.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> they are from? LMAO, not to be rude, but...No. there was lizards during, and before the dinosaurs. did you know monitors came from mosasaurs, and snakes came from either early monitors or late mosasaurs? and mosasaurs are marine reptiles, that lived with the dinosaurs. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, mostly small raptors, as if you see what accurate raptors look like they look very similar, both smallish, have feathers, etc.
> [doublepost=1514938447,1514938373][/doublepost]related to them? that's a different story, but hey, we're also quite closely related to bone fish.


Monitors came from Megalania not Mosasaurs.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

meglania, or VARANUS priscus, is a monitor.
[doublepost=1514939331,1514939198][/doublepost]in which really megalania priscus/varanus priscus is the correct term, not megalania, but megalania is widely accepted because of how old of a term it is.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> meglania, or VARANUS priscus, is a monitor.
> [doublepost=1514939331,1514939198][/doublepost]in which really megalania priscus/varanus priscus is the correct term, not megalania, but megalania is widely accepted because of how old of a term it is.


I was referring to modern day monitors. The only prehistoric monitor I know of is Megalania. 
Megalania, Komodo and Lace monitors all share the same structure to their vertebrae.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

i could list over five, but monitors in general came from mosasaurs. awesome vertebrae replica by the way, i should start getting a few honestly.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> i could list over five, but monitors in general came from mosasaurs. awesome vertebrae replica by the way, i should start getting a few honestly.


They arent replicas. They are the real deal. These were shown around at the talk by Steve Wilson.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

i was gonna ask about that, but the label made me think replica. I don't think i'd trust others to hold such things. awesome looking nonetheless.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Unrelated but thought I would add it anyway.
The Ninjemys Oweni (Owen's Ninja Turtle). This is a foam replica of its skull.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

i think i've seen drawings of it, but to see a replica of it's skull is mindblowing, makes me realise how small i think some things are when in comparison are huge, numbers don't help give me a vision of something so huge honestly. @Aussiepride83 Think you'd be up to keeping one of those?


----------



## sp.michael (Jan 3, 2018)

The critical point of a population, in terms of sufficient genetic diversity is 10 unrelated individuals. As such it wouldnt be hard to produce ten unrelated embryos, with know variances in certain sections of the DNA. As for the money better spent else where, that's true, but that money might be a donation which would only come about from this experiment, and otherwise would not have been given to science. It was tried a few years ago with the bucardo goat, but wasn't very successful, however technology improves. Also, it'd be unlikely for them to be re-released, most would just be zoo only animals.


----------



## Nerdhero (Jan 3, 2018)

Stompsy said:


> We just shouldn’t play god.



I think there are some very good arguments on here both for and against this cloning topic.

This playing god thing got me thinking though. Don't we already do that? Look at snakes for example. We selectively line breed them for whatever trait is desired. The course of natural selection no longer what will help your survive best but what we find most appealing. We take this way behond what is healthy for the animal, look at some so called *pure* dog breeds like bulldogs who are so deformed they can't breathe properly.

Also aren't we just another animal? When a lion kills for food its nature. If i kill for food (not for sport) some look down upon it. Always thought it strange we hold ourselves above everything else


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

The things is, sooner or later someone will come along who decides that they want to make money from the cloning and making of an exhibit based business. There are many more important recent extinctions that should be considered before trying to bring back prehistoric creatures.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

if you've ever owned a dog, you're playing god. if you've ever eaten a banana, strawberry, etc, you're playing god. all have been linebred, with dogs coming from wolves.
[doublepost=1514947837,1514947786][/doublepost]using that as a defense is dumb if you've basically eaten almost any fruit or kept any morphed animal, or a dog, cat, etc.
[doublepost=1514947883][/doublepost]as an argument, not a defense*


----------



## vampstorso (Jan 3, 2018)

Haven't read all responses, just left a funeral,

So just quickly,
The thing is people look at anything old and scaley and say it's a "dinosaur" when in reality, it may not be.
I believe there was a talk by the Field Museum about common misconceptions about "dinosaurs",


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> if you've ever owned a dog, you're playing god. if you've ever eaten a banana, strawberry, etc, you're playing god. all have been linebred, with dogs coming from wolves.
> [doublepost=1514947837,1514947786][/doublepost]using that as a defense is dumb if you've basically eaten almost any fruit or kept any morphed animal, or a dog, cat, etc.
> [doublepost=1514947883][/doublepost]as an argument, not a defense*


It isn't the people who own a dog or eat a banana, it is the people that create these things that play god.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> if you've ever owned a dog, you're playing god. if you've ever eaten a banana, strawberry, etc, you're playing god. all have been linebred, with dogs coming from wolves.
> [doublepost=1514947837,1514947786][/doublepost]using that as a defense is dumb if you've basically eaten almost any fruit or kept any morphed animal, or a dog, cat, etc.
> [doublepost=1514947883][/doublepost]as an argument, not a defense*


Solid argument.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

well you still can't argue that if you have, because then you support playing god. as some who isn't religious i don't really care if we "play god" as long as humane @Scutellatus


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> well you still can't argue that if you have, because then you support playing god. as some who isn't religious i don't really care if we "play god" as long as humane @Scutellatus


Being religious has nothing to do with the god arguement. I think you are reading to much into that aspect.
I don't support playing god because I eat a banana, I eat a banana because I want to eat it, the same goes for owning a dog, I would own it because I want to. You can't seriously believe that doing either places someone into the supporting playing god category.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

but lets say they buy it off a breeder, they there for support the breeder, which the breeder is supposedly playing god, and therefor in the bigger picture they're supporting playing god. i realise that the playing god argument isn't really to do with religion completely too.


----------



## Nerdhero (Jan 3, 2018)

The whole playing god thing is another can of worms. Are designer babies ok? Probably not. But if you could stop your baby from having genetic disease wouldnt it be reckless not to? 

Very slippery slope with many opinions.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Nerdhero said:


> The whole playing god thing is another can of worms. Are designer babies ok? Probably not. But if you could stop your baby from having genetic disease wouldnt it be reckless not to?
> 
> Very slippery slope with many opinions.


In regard to babies I believe there are genes that some people have that are not meant to be mixed and when they are mixed they produce inferior young. Maybe instead of designer babies they could do more research on genetics and make a test that both people can take to check the mixing of their DNA and whether they will produce deformities in their children. Not very PC but it would stop the world from being flooded with deformities in children (both mental and physical) like there are today.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 3, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> Not to mention that the male to female ratio in China now is like 150:1 and they're talking about, (I read this a while back) introducing new laws where a man must share his wife so that other men can marry... wt actual f?!



Where on earth do you get this waffle from?
1.15 men per woman in China.
[doublepost=1514954863,1514954576][/doublepost]


GBWhite said:


> No. And what we should seriously consider is controlling the human population.



Even as a young fella I couldn't understand how the worlds increasing population was sustainable but we just keep on breeding.
Funny thing is it seems to be those who have less ability to look after their young that breed more.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

isn't that the numbers for the ratio of colorblind-ness? lol


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> Where on earth do you get this waffle from?
> 1.15 men per woman in China.
> [doublepost=1514954863,1514954576][/doublepost]
> 
> ...


Obviously it was an exaggeration cobber but you get the gist. Women outnumber men in Australia. Those are my kinda numbers.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

mostly because of the suicide rates of males during puberty because of peer pressure, bullying, etc, as males are born more, and there's more male children than female children, and so on.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> mostly because of the suicide rates of males during puberty because of peer pressure, bullying, etc, as males are born more, and there's more male children than female children, and so on.


I don't know if that's the reason... my understanding is there's far more female babies born than males... my family for example... I've 1 brother and 7 sisters, I've got 2 daughters... my wife's sister has 1 son and 3 daughters... pretty sure more children are born female.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 3, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> I agree, the rate at which deforestation is occurring is mind blowing.



Lets consider all those stupid plastic bottles that humans can't live without. How much damage are they still doing. And yet we know how bad they are to the environment, we know only a very small percentage are recycled and we know the consequences. 
How many of you had a drink today from a single use plastic container or used a plastic straw and then tossed it in the trash without a 2nd thought?
There are plenty of things we can do that will make a difference every day if we choose to act rather than point fingers.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

i have 3 brothers and 2 sisters, and i see way more males than females when it comes to children.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> Lets consider all those stupid plastic bottles that humans can't live without. How much damage are they still doing. And yet we know how bad they are to the environment, we know only a very small percentage are recycled and we know the consequences.
> How many of you had a drink today from a single use plastic container or used a plastic straw and then tossed it in the trash without a 2nd thought?
> There are plenty of things we can do that will make a difference every day if we choose to act rather than point fingers.


As of February this year our local supermarkets have totally banned plastic bags... there's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

*when you're drinking out of a plastic bottle right now*


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> i have 3 brothers and 2 sisters, and i see way more males than females when it comes to children.


At my daughter's school, both their classes, there's 3 girls to every boy. I haven't actually looked up the exact data/figures but I did hear something a while back along the lines that there's 1 male baby born to every 3 girls.
[doublepost=1514955578,1514955519][/doublepost]


Imported_tuatara said:


> *when you're drinking out of a plastic bottle right now*


Aluminium can actually...


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

well i'm pretty sure worldwide there's more males born? too lazy to look up it again.


----------



## Wally (Jan 3, 2018)

Has become quite an expansive conversation.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

"Worldwide, there are 107 *boy* babies *born* for every 100 *girl* babies. This skewed ratio is partly due to sex-selective abortion and "gendercide," the killing of female infants, in countries such as China and India where males *are more *desired."


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> Lets consider all those stupid plastic bottles that humans can't live without. How much damage are they still doing. And yet we know how bad they are to the environment, we know only a very small percentage are recycled and we know the consequences.
> How many of you had a drink today from a single use plastic container or used a plastic straw and then tossed it in the trash without a 2nd thought?
> There are plenty of things we can do that will make a difference every day if we choose to act rather than point fingers.


Check out the documentary called Ocean of Plastics. It is on Netflix.
It is an absolute disgrace.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> well i'm pretty sure worldwide there's more males born? too lazy to look up it again.


World wide, possibly, I dunno but in Australia males are grossly outnumbered... another reason why we should be allowed to have multipple wives. Lol stuff that, got enough dramas with 1. Lol


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

move to iraq for that, be careful of the bombs tho


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> "Worldwide, there are 107 *boy* babies *born* for every 100 *girl* babies. This skewed ratio is partly due to sex-selective abortion and "gendercide," the killing of female infants, in countries such as China and India where males *are more *desired."


Are yes, so letting nature take its course, the numbers would well and truly be reversed.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 3, 2018)

it says partly, there's also genetics involved i'm pretty sure.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 3, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> Obviously it was an exaggeration cobber but you get the gist. Women outnumber men in Australia.


No they don't actually 'Cobber'. 1.06 males born per female in Australia. In line with global averages.


----------



## GBWhite (Jan 3, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> I don't know if that's the reason... my understanding is there's far more female babies born than males... my family for example... I've 1 brother and 7 sisters, I've got 2 daughters... my wife's sister has 1 son and 3 daughters... pretty sure more children are born female.



World wide the ratio of male to female births (not including gendercide where female embryos and children are killed in preference to males) is 105 males to 100 females. Research indicates that it appears to be a result of more females embryos dying during pregnancy than male embryos. It's believed that this is an evolutionary trait developed over time as a means to eventually even out the ratio. Male infants suffer health complications more than females, males take more risks and on average suffer more health problems that lead to an early death more than females, males kill each other more than females and as a result it nearly balances things out to 101 males for every 100 females.

In developed countries, including Australia the ratio of adult females is slightly higher than males. The imbalance is associated with more females surviving 60+ than males.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> No they don't actually 'Cobber'. 1.06 males born per female in Australia. In line with global averages.


Interesting... the data I have says that there's more females in Australia and what George has said above is correct. I just read it on the ABS. FEMALES outnumber males in Australia, regardless of birth rates as an overall population. That's what I originally thought.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 3, 2018)

Aussiepride83 said:


> Interesting... the data I have says that there's more females in Australia and what George has said above is correct. I just read it on the ABS. FEMALES outnumber males in Australia, regardless of birth rates as an overall population. That's what I originally thought.


They may outnumber males as overall population but this can be attributed to males dying earlier as George stated.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 3, 2018)

Scutellatus said:


> They may outnumber males as overall population but this can be attributed to males dying earlier as George stated.


Yeah that's right, I wasn't worried about the reasons behind the numbers just the numbers themselves... I heard years ago that women outnumber men in Australia. Now we know why.


----------



## CrazyNut (Jan 3, 2018)

Nope. Not at all.

If they are set in the wild they will reclaim nichies that were left empty with their extinction and probably just lead to more extinctions. 

If they are kept in captivity: Whats the point? It won't be for conservation, just another way to make money. 

Honsetly I think its much better idea to clone current species of extinct localities. This will provide a more variety in the gene pool. Theres a chance that these localities will die out again but if they don't it will be a great plus.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 3, 2018)

Foozil said:


> So that we can work out what went wrong with those and figure out how to prevent extinctions happening again.


the only way to do that is make humans extinct
[doublepost=1514964895,1514963716][/doublepost]


Aussiepride83 said:


> I don't know if that's the reason... my understanding is there's far more female babies born than males... my family for example... I've 1 brother and 7 sisters, I've got 2 daughters... my wife's sister has 1 son and 3 daughters... pretty sure more children are born female.


I am 1 of 4 boys,no sisters,I have 2 sons & 1 daughter.
[doublepost=1514965326][/doublepost]


Pauls_Pythons said:


> Lets consider all those stupid plastic bottles that humans can't live without. How much damage are they still doing. And yet we know how bad they are to the environment, we know only a very small percentage are recycled and we know the consequences.
> How many of you had a drink today from a single use plastic container or used a plastic straw and then tossed it in the trash without a 2nd thought?
> There are plenty of things we can do that will make a difference every day if we choose to act rather than point fingers.


I'm with you there Paul,I am an avid plastic hater,I always refuse plastic bags,I bring my own re-usable,I refuse plastic cutlery at take-away,I keep metal cutlery in my truck and I recycle as much as possible.And I always condemn people who buy lots of bottles of water (if you are out and get thirsty then sure buy a drink if you have to). Water comes out of the tap for free,just refill your bottle don't throw it away.


----------



## vampstorso (Jan 4, 2018)

Conveniently found a simple video about what I was mentioning.

You'll either love or hate Hank. Personally I love him and found his videos helpful at uni.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 4, 2018)

dragonlover1 said:


> I'm with you there Paul,I am an avid plastic hater,I always refuse plastic bags,I bring my own re-usable,I refuse plastic cutlery at take-away,I keep metal cutlery in my truck and I recycle as much as possible.And I always condemn people who buy lots of bottles of water (if you are out and get thirsty then sure buy a drink if you have to). Water comes out of the tap for free,just refill your bottle don't throw it away.


You must cringe at the sight of your plastic bank cards and plastic money... and all those with plastic surgery. LOL


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 4, 2018)

Scutellatus said:


> Check out the documentary called Ocean of Plastics. It is on Netflix.
> It is an absolute disgrace.


Bag It is another good doco on plastics.
The trouble with most so called plastic bag bans is they don't ban all plastic bags. Here in SA, a "ban" in place since 2009, we still have "heavy duty" plastic bags, and so called biodegradable plastic bags, which only really break down into tiny pieces as they degrade. In the ocean and waterways these bags break down and are ingested by the sea and river creatures.
By drinking bottled water, you are not only sustaining the plastic industry (Coca Cola refuses to use recycled plastic bottles), but the water is either purified tap water or groundwater, another valuable resource.
@Aussiepride83, not having a go at you, but there is a difference in a plastic bag or bottle, and plastic bank cards or money, or even a plastic bucket. Single use. While we all should reduce our plastic usage, it is the single use plastics that are the biggest problem.
And in case anyone doesn't know, you can recycle all soft plastics, like bags, wraps, etc., at your local Coles supermarket. We save all ours in a plastic bag and drop it off weekly. Chip packets, the plastic on fruit and veg (even the net bags are nylon), anything. They trick you with things like chip packets because they look like foil, but they aren't. One of the big bosses from Coles was interviewed on War on Waste; he said they will take all soft plastics, not just bags.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 4, 2018)

pinefamily said:


> Bag It is another good doco on plastics.
> The trouble with most so called plastic bag bans is they don't ban all plastic bags. Here in SA, a "ban" in place since 2009, we still have "heavy duty" plastic bags, and so called biodegradable plastic bags, which only really break down into tiny pieces as they degrade. In the ocean and waterways these bags break down and are ingested by the sea and river creatures.
> By drinking bottled water, you are not only sustaining the plastic industry (Coca Cola refuses to use recycled plastic bottles), but the water is either purified tap water or groundwater, another valuable resource.
> @Aussiepride83, not having a go at you, but there is a difference in a plastic bag or bottle, and plastic bank cards or money, or even a plastic bucket. Single use. While we all should reduce our plastic usage, it is the single use plastics that are the biggest problem.
> And in case anyone doesn't know, you can recycle all soft plastics, like bags, wraps, etc., at your local Coles supermarket. We save all ours in a plastic bag and drop it off weekly. Chip packets, the plastic on fruit and veg (even the net bags are nylon), anything. They trick you with things like chip packets because they look like foil, but they aren't. One of the big bosses from Coles was interviewed on War on Waste; he said they will take all soft plastics, not just bags.


Did you see the episode on War on Waste where they tracked where those plastic bags go? They placed a tracking device in with some bags they put in the bag recycling bin and the majority ended up in landfill. I think that may have been with Woolworths.


----------



## Prof_Moreliarty (Jan 4, 2018)

You give bottled water company’s too much credit @pinefamily. They do sell tap water as spring water and it’s been filtered to reduce chlorine taste and odour but its nowhere near purified.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 4, 2018)

Prof_Moreliarty said:


> You give bottled water company’s too much credit @pinefamily. They do sell tap water as spring water and it’s been filtered to reduce chlorine taste and odour but its nowhere near purified.



Many of them take tap water and put it through a process you may have heard of called reverse osmosis to removed additives such as chlorine.
People pay more for bottled water that comes from the tap than they do for petrol but never complain about it.
[doublepost=1515030158,1515029484][/doublepost]


pinefamily said:


> here is a difference in a plastic bag or bottle, and plastic bank cards or money, or even a plastic bucket. Single use. While we all should reduce our plastic usage, it is the single use plastics that are the biggest problem.



100% agree. My issue is not with plastic in its entirety, its about the single use plastics that we really don't need. Plastic has been around a long time and is an awesome product in many applications. But people fail to see the real issues with a product that simply isn't recycled to any great extent......in fact many companies refuse to use recycled plastics for containers because the consumer wants a clear appearance that can not be achieved with recycled product. 
I learned a few weeks ago that China actually recycles 60+% of the worlds plastics at present but they are about to stop taking plastic from other country's as they no longer need it. **** is about to get far worse and some people just seem to take it as a joke......


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 4, 2018)

I probably used the wrong word in purified.
What happens with plastic production when oil gets scarcer?
Business won't really get involved in recycling because there are no visible profits. This is where governments need to step in, but I can't see our weak pollies doing anything. We've lost industry after industry, so why not a government-backed recycling industry? We could become world leaders. Maybe then recycled products won't cost as much as they do.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 4, 2018)

@pinefamily the stickers on most fruits are eatable, so are the glues


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 4, 2018)

Totally love my "Recycled plastic" RELN compost worm cafe. Endless supply of worms for my turtles and frogs.  Doing my bit for the environment.  Even using throwaway plastic bowls filled with water to prevent ants from crawling up the legs and entering the worm farm.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 4, 2018)

How good are we at recycling in Australia????


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 4, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> @pinefamily the stickers on most fruits are eatable, so are the glues


Yeah I found that out after eating a granny smith apple sticker... I didn't die.


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 4, 2018)

I have accidentally eaten them over the years, but won't any more. They don't break down in the compost bin at all. I've found stickers in the garden. Other paper and cardboard breaks down. So do they dissolve in our guts, or come out in our poop? I try not to buy fruit with stickers; the apples are usually waxed to look pretty.


----------



## azzmilan (Jan 4, 2018)

My 2cents on it.

No .I literally have a Thylacine tattoo and I would still vote that down too. We can barely keep the species we have such as the Devil,Numbat , quoll and glider species. We really should focus on what we have now and eventually when we have a more sensible approach on land and wildlife management , bringing back species that we decimated such as the Tiger would be a good idea. Only if though, they would provide an ecological function that would benefit the ecosystem itself. 
Like will a Tiger's presence reduce/lower the activity of feral cats ect.

Bringing back the Mammoth in a completely different time & climatic zone is silly . Would only make any sense if we were to implement some sort of "De-Extinction" Park and bring back some animals as representatives to change our resource use/land & wildlife management to become more sustainable and sensible.


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 4, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> @pinefamily the stickers on most fruits are eatable, so are the glues





pinefamily said:


> I have accidentally eaten them over the years, but won't any more. They don't break down in the compost bin at all. I've found stickers in the garden. Other paper and cardboard breaks down. So do they dissolve in our guts, or come out in our poop? I try not to buy fruit with stickers; the apples are usually waxed to look pretty.


I am pretty sure they are a plastic sticker which is not really edible. It probably won't cause too much harm but definitely won't break down in the gut. I think the breaking down in the gut is what classifies something as edible.


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Jan 4, 2018)

*Fruit Stickers* Are *Edible*. It is recommended by the FDA to wash all *fruit* before eating, but eating the *stickers on fruit *won't hurt you. The *stickers* and their adhesive are FDA-approved and safe to ingest. However, it's suggested that you remove the *stickers* before eating *fruits*


----------



## Scutellatus (Jan 4, 2018)

The FDA is American and going off the crap in their food I wouldn't trust any recommendation from them. Plastic is not meant to be ingested, food grade or not.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 4, 2018)

pinefamily said:


> I have accidentally eaten them over the years, but won't any more. They don't break down in the compost bin at all. I've found stickers in the garden. Other paper and cardboard breaks down. So do they dissolve in our guts, or come out in our poop? I try not to buy fruit with stickers; the apples are usually waxed to look pretty.


haha that's pretty funny Darren,imagine having a poop and it comes out with a granny smith sticker on it " that don't look like no granny smith to me"


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jan 4, 2018)

Lots of things are edible that I personally wouldn't put in my mouth.
For decades we used plastic baby bottles before it was admitted that the chemicals in the plastic were leaching into the contents as they were being used.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 4, 2018)

Imported_tuatara said:


> *Fruit Stickers* Are *Edible*. It is recommended by the FDA to wash all *fruit* before eating, but eating the *stickers on fruit *won't hurt you. The *stickers* and their adhesive are FDA-approved and safe to ingest. However, it's suggested that you remove the *stickers* before eating *fruits*


I wouldn't trust the FDA too much,they also approved things like DDT which has now been banned around the world


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 4, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> Lots of things are edible that I personally wouldn't put in my mouth.
> For decades we used plastic baby bottles before it was admitted that the chemicals in the plastic were leaching into the contents as they were being used.


I used glass bottles for my kids, bought them all from the local pharmacy. Wouldn't feed my kids from those plastic bpa laden death bottles.


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 4, 2018)

In the USA they do use edible stickers I believe. And I think they used to be paper here too, but now they are plastic, or plastic coated.

Mind you, I wouldn't be game to eat their apples, with all the glyphosates they use.



dragonlover1 said:


> haha that's pretty funny Darren,imagine having a poop and it comes out with a granny smith sticker on it " that don't look like no granny smith to me"



Haha, very true mate


----------



## cement (Jan 27, 2018)

yeah but the govt also says there is a "safe" allowable level of mercury, we can ingest too.
When studies have now shown that 1 part per trillion is harmful.
Why they put stickers on fruit is beyond me, or glue or wrap it in plastic. Does anyone here remember what fruit and grocery shops smelt like back in the 60-70's? Todays fruit shops don' t have that natural beautiful smell. Everything came in brown paper bags, and there was even ..... wait for it.... thicker brown paper bags for the mother loads. Oh, but there was a problem, now and again you'd get get the odd grub, Lol!! So they replaced the healthy edible grub with chemicals and poisons and plastics. Pretty sure no -one died of grub poisoning!!


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jan 27, 2018)

cement said:


> yeah but the govt also says there is a "safe" allowable level of mercury, we can ingest too.
> When studies have now shown that 1 part per trillion is harmful.
> Why they put stickers on fruit is beyond me, or glue or wrap it in plastic. Does anyone here remember what fruit and grocery shops smelt like back in the 60-70's? Todays fruit shops don' t have that natural beautiful smell. Everything came in brown paper bags, and there was even ..... wait for it.... thicker brown paper bags for the mother loads. Oh, but there was a problem, now and again you'd get get the odd grub, Lol!! So they replaced the healthy edible grub with chemicals and poisons and plastics. Pretty sure no -one died of grub poisoning!!


all very true,but speaking of mercury why isn't there a system for recycling/reclaiming mercury in this country.I took some old MVB's & UV's to the tradie outlet thinking they had some system and he just chucked them in the bin


----------



## cement (Jan 28, 2018)

Beats me. In my travels finding locations close to where I catch snakes, for releasing , I'm constantly coming across piles of illegally dumped rubbish in patches of bush. But when I took a pretty small load to the local tip the other day, I got charged the minimum fee $22.00. It used to be $10. 
Any wonder people just dump wherever now. 
It was free at the tip I went to in Redlands couple of years ago, as long as you showed you were resident..


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jan 28, 2018)

They brought in that whole X amount of $$ per sized load of rubbish up here several years ago at the local tip too and it was quickly abandoned within 18 months as people started dumping their trash all over the roadsides on the way to the tip. It's now free again no matter how big or small your ute load or trailer load is. I went out 5 times in one weekend last winter.


----------



## pinefamily (Jan 29, 2018)

Our local council is pretty good. We can recycle light globes and batteries at the library, and any scrap metal can be taken to the bottle and can depot next to the tip. When we moved in, we had heaps of cardboard boxes. Flattened down they mad a ute full. Took them to the tip, and the bloke said just drive in and told us what bin to put them in, no charge. Branches can be taken to one of the local farms where they have a bonfire once a year for the church youth group.


----------

