308
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
308 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59081 readers
3415 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Does anyone else feel like this is irresponsible? Like, I get it, humans have been destroying the ecosystems of endangered and extinct animals for awhile now. But the world is actively warming up. And even if this is successful, how do we create enough of them to survive and procreate without defects etc. And where the hell will they live? I just have some concerns.
Nearly every species ever has gone extinct. What you see around you are those few species that made it to the present. So, yes, on one hand it doesn’t matter. On the other hand, a new population of elephants isn’t going to affect the world and we can appreciate them.
Nope, seems cool to me.
It is likely that we humans or our ancestors were responsible for the extinction of most of the megafauna around the world, so we would only be undoing our own damage I guess.
We'd first have to undo all the damage we did to the rest of the Earth which, even if we wanted, we couldn't do.
As far as I understand, the whole "de-extinction" thing is just a huge flex on our part.