QUOTE
The results, published in the international scientific journal PLoS ONE this week, showed that the thylacine Col2a1 gene has a similar function in developing cartilage and bone development as the Col2a1 gene does in the mouse.
“This is the first time that DNA from an extinct species has been used to induce a functional response in another living organism,” said Dr Andrew Pask, RD Wright Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Department of Zoology who led the research.
“This is the first time that DNA from an extinct species has been used to induce a functional response in another living organism,” said Dr Andrew Pask, RD Wright Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Department of Zoology who led the research.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The results, published in the international scientific journal PLoS ONE this week, showed that the thylacine Col2a1 gene has a similar function in developing cartilage and bone development as the Col2a1 gene does in the mouse. “This is the first time that DNA from an extinct species has been used to induce a functional response in another living organism,” said Dr Andrew Pask, RD Wright Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Department of Zoology who led the research. |
The last known Tasmanian tiger died in captivity in the Hobart Zoo in 1936. This enigmatic marsupial carnivore was hunted to extinction in the wild in the early 1900s.
QUOTE
“For those species that have already become extinct, our method shows that access to their genetic biodiversity may not be completely lost.”
Not only DNA from a distinct species, but a marsupial one. In time, this discovery will combine with related discoveries and further advances in synthetic gene creation and long sequence cloning, and it will bring us closer to a connecting the dots scheme to perhaps resurrect such gorgeous creatures as a thylacine. There is admittedly a lot of controversy surrounding that, but imo any creature that could live just fine right now in some modest foresthood on this planet (at least) but for being hunted to extinction, should be given the gift to reclaim it's own actuality. It's a little poetic that this discovery involved a thylacine, at least for me, but heck I can't be the only one that chokes up when I watch those films of that gentle last representative of it's kind, even typing about it.
I gotta say, I've always loved those old movies of the thylacine.
If ever we pull a jurrasic park type scenario, I think we should bring them boys back first. I'd love one as a pet, and from what I read, they weren't hard to domesticate.
If ever we pull a jurrasic park type scenario, I think we should bring them boys back first. I'd love one as a pet, and from what I read, they weren't hard to domesticate.
Interesting soundhertz. The press should go berserk over the information, if available. Recombining DNA to enact an exact specie should be easy once the chain is developed. Good work.
Today, 20 May 2008, in a world first, scientists announced that they have extracted a gene from the extinct Tasmanian tiger and successfully inserted it into a mouse embryo. It is the first time a gene from any extinct animal has been brought back to life inside another living creature. Obtaining the thylacine gene, called Col2a1, was itself a major challenge, because DNA begins breaking down after death. However, the researchers from the University of Melbourne and the University of Texas, say the technology will not lead to the cloning of an entire Tasmanian tiger.(1)--Richard Macey, “Extinct gene brought back to life,” in the age.com.au, May 20, 2008
----------------------
I found the above so interesting I wrote the following prose-poem to place the Tasmanian tiger in a personal, philosophical, historical and religious context:
--------------------
A PERILOUS EXISTENCE
On 7 September 1936 the world's last captive thylacine or Tasmanian tiger died in the Hobart Zoo. The thylacine is the only mammal to have become extinct in Tasmania since European settlement. I have spent a significant part of my life in northern Tasmanian, where many sightings of the tiger have occurred since 1937.
When the last Tasmanian tiger died in 1936 my maternal grandfather was about to retire on a Canadian old age pension. His wife would die in three years and my mother was about to meet my father. The Baha’i community, which members of my family have been associated with in Canada now for fifty-five years, was, in September 1936, just beginning to conceive a plan to establish one centre in every state of the USA and in every country in Central and South America with ramifications to include every country on the European continent.2 By the end of that plan, a seven year plan from 1937 to 1944, my parents had met and married. On 23 July 1944 I was born, three days after an assassination attempt on the life of Hitler and four days before another planned assassination on his life. -Ron Price with thanks to 1Richard Macey, “Extinct gene brought back to life,” in the age.com.au, May 20, 2008; and 2 Shoghi Effendi, Messages To America, Wilmette, 1947, p.7.
Indeed, the field was immense,
the task gigantic, the privilege
immeasurably precious, but the
time was short, obligations sacred,
paramount and urgent to muster
all our force, our resources, our
faith, determination and energy
to set out, single-minded and
undaunted, to attain exertion’s
heights---as humanity entered
the outer fringes of the most
perilous stage of its existence
and as the thylacine was in the
last phase of its existence—or
so it seemed until the other day.
Ron Price
20 May 2008
----------------------
I found the above so interesting I wrote the following prose-poem to place the Tasmanian tiger in a personal, philosophical, historical and religious context:
--------------------
A PERILOUS EXISTENCE
On 7 September 1936 the world's last captive thylacine or Tasmanian tiger died in the Hobart Zoo. The thylacine is the only mammal to have become extinct in Tasmania since European settlement. I have spent a significant part of my life in northern Tasmanian, where many sightings of the tiger have occurred since 1937.
When the last Tasmanian tiger died in 1936 my maternal grandfather was about to retire on a Canadian old age pension. His wife would die in three years and my mother was about to meet my father. The Baha’i community, which members of my family have been associated with in Canada now for fifty-five years, was, in September 1936, just beginning to conceive a plan to establish one centre in every state of the USA and in every country in Central and South America with ramifications to include every country on the European continent.2 By the end of that plan, a seven year plan from 1937 to 1944, my parents had met and married. On 23 July 1944 I was born, three days after an assassination attempt on the life of Hitler and four days before another planned assassination on his life. -Ron Price with thanks to 1Richard Macey, “Extinct gene brought back to life,” in the age.com.au, May 20, 2008; and 2 Shoghi Effendi, Messages To America, Wilmette, 1947, p.7.
Indeed, the field was immense,
the task gigantic, the privilege
immeasurably precious, but the
time was short, obligations sacred,
paramount and urgent to muster
all our force, our resources, our
faith, determination and energy
to set out, single-minded and
undaunted, to attain exertion’s
heights---as humanity entered
the outer fringes of the most
perilous stage of its existence
and as the thylacine was in the
last phase of its existence—or
so it seemed until the other day.
Ron Price
20 May 2008
I hope they find a genetic cure for devil facial tumour disease, as now the Tasmanian Devil is the largest carnivorous marsupial in the world after the extinction of the Thylacine in 1936.
First seen in 1995, devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) has ravaged Tasmania's wild devils, and estimates of the impact range from 20% to as much as a 50% decline in the devil population with over 65% of the State affected.
Affected high-density populations suffer up to 100% mortality in 12–18 months. The species was listed as vulnerable under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in 2006 which means that it is at risk of extinction in the "medium term". The IUCN does not regard the species as threatened; when this species was last evaluated for the IUCN in 1996, it was listed as lower risk/least concern.
Wild Tasmanian Devil populations are being monitored to track the spread of the disease and to identify changes in disease prevalence. Field monitoring involves trapping devils within a defined area to check for the presence of the disease and determine the number of affected animals. The same area is visited repeatedly to characterise the spread of the disease over time. So far, it has been established that the short-term effects of the disease in an area can be severe. Long-term monitoring at replicated sites will be essential to assess whether these effects remain, or whether populations can recover. Field workers are also testing the effectiveness of disease suppression by trapping and removing diseased devils. It is hoped that the removal of diseased devils from wild populations should decrease disease prevalence and allow more devils to survive beyond their juvenile years and breed. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil
First seen in 1995, devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) has ravaged Tasmania's wild devils, and estimates of the impact range from 20% to as much as a 50% decline in the devil population with over 65% of the State affected.
Affected high-density populations suffer up to 100% mortality in 12–18 months. The species was listed as vulnerable under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in 2006 which means that it is at risk of extinction in the "medium term". The IUCN does not regard the species as threatened; when this species was last evaluated for the IUCN in 1996, it was listed as lower risk/least concern.Wild Tasmanian Devil populations are being monitored to track the spread of the disease and to identify changes in disease prevalence. Field monitoring involves trapping devils within a defined area to check for the presence of the disease and determine the number of affected animals. The same area is visited repeatedly to characterise the spread of the disease over time. So far, it has been established that the short-term effects of the disease in an area can be severe. Long-term monitoring at replicated sites will be essential to assess whether these effects remain, or whether populations can recover. Field workers are also testing the effectiveness of disease suppression by trapping and removing diseased devils. It is hoped that the removal of diseased devils from wild populations should decrease disease prevalence and allow more devils to survive beyond their juvenile years and breed. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil
Our present level of technology has reduced our dependence on much of the worlds natural systems, which brings us to the question of why even bother trying to maintain these natural species and systems if they don't benefit human existence? Other than some fishes, non domesticated species compete with us for resources, and serve as a reservoir for deadly pathogens. From microbes to manatees, they're all out to get us. If wildlife can't be tamed, better for us that it join the Thylacine
If anything, technology should afford us the means to preserve what's left and even bring loss back, not banish it all. If we can, isn't that what you'd rather see? Or not?
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 22 2008, 01:18 AM)
If anything, technology should afford us the means to preserve what's left and even bring loss back, not banish it all. If we can, isn't that what you'd rather see? Or not?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
It saddens me to think not every body thinks like you.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
It saddens me to think not every body thinks like you.
Capracus, Do you really feel that all other animals except the ones we eat should go the way of the Thylacine? 
Have you not heard the eloquent Native American oratory concerning the need to preserve nature and wildlife? 
Do you REALLY think of all other animals as competing for our resources? 
If we decimated the web of life as you describe, we would soon follow, technology or not. 
Have you studied the interplay of life in working ecosystems? That is a recipe for total disaster! 
Have you not heard the eloquent Native American oratory concerning the need to preserve nature and wildlife? Do you REALLY think of all other animals as competing for our resources? If we decimated the web of life as you describe, we would soon follow, technology or not. Have you studied the interplay of life in working ecosystems? That is a recipe for total disaster!
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 22 2008, 01:18 AM)
If anything, technology should afford us the means to preserve what's left and even bring loss back, not banish it all. If we can, isn't that what you'd rather see? Or not?
Like everything else in the cosmos, we are an element of nature, and collectively we are a force of nature. As time progresses, we inherit more and more of Mother Nature's responsibility for the evolutionary processes on this planet. With our advances in technology, we are increasingly able to physically change the face of the landscape, ourselves, and any other species, past or present. With these extraordinary powers, what is the role that Mother Nature intends for us? Are we to mold the planet into a collection of varied ecosystems and populate them with every creature that has ever existed to this point? Or, do we only bring back the ones that humanity is responsible for eradicating?
Like the asteroid impacts of the past, maybe we are intended to be the facilitators of the next mass extinction event. An alternate role, with our powers of genetic manipulation, would be to put all species on the evolutionary fast track. Which brings up the question of what is the evolutionary apex of a given species. Would all species given the proper conditions, evolve capabilities such as ours? Will it be our duty to bring all species up to our level? Or, has Mother nature already done that be creating us? Do we not represent the apex of creation up to this point? By incorporating the genetic qualities of our fellow species into us or our creations, are we not furthering their evolution as well?
Like the asteroid impacts of the past, maybe we are intended to be the facilitators of the next mass extinction event. An alternate role, with our powers of genetic manipulation, would be to put all species on the evolutionary fast track. Which brings up the question of what is the evolutionary apex of a given species. Would all species given the proper conditions, evolve capabilities such as ours? Will it be our duty to bring all species up to our level? Or, has Mother nature already done that be creating us? Do we not represent the apex of creation up to this point? By incorporating the genetic qualities of our fellow species into us or our creations, are we not furthering their evolution as well?
QUOTE (photojack+May 22 2008, 04:30 AM)
Capracus, Do you really feel that all other animals except the ones we eat should go the way of the Thylacine?
Personally, I long for the day when domesticated animals are no longer necessary. It's ironic that we accept different standards of life between domestic and wild, owned and unowned. It would be nice some day to have fair consistent treatment of all valued life. As for wild species, do prey animals enjoy being prey? Do wild species of all kinds deserve hardship and disease? How far do we go in the manipulation of wildlife?
QUOTE
Have you not heard the eloquent Native American oratory concerning the need to preserve nature and wildlife?
You mean like these Native Americans? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you not heard the eloquent Native American oratory concerning the need to preserve nature and wildlife? |
You mean like these Native Americans? Although the Indians revered the bear, they were also, according to Storer and Tevis, delighted when the Spaniards arrived with firearms. They write: “[In the Spanish period] a sure way to earn the gratitude of the natives was to destroy grizzlies. The Indians were delighted that at last human beings had come into the land who could successfully dispute the domination of the bears, and they often showed their pleasure with gifts.”
http://www.fseee.org/index.html?page=http%.../0005east.shtml
http://www.fseee.org/index.html?page=http%.../0005east.shtml
QUOTE
Do you REALLY think of all other animals as competing for our resources?
No, but humanity as a whole behaves as if they do.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you REALLY think of all other animals as competing for our resources? |
No, but humanity as a whole behaves as if they do.
If we decimated the web of life as you describe, we would soon follow, technology or not.
If we decimated the web of life as you describe, we would soon follow, technology or not.
We at some point will be the masters of the web of life, how the planet does under it's new master depends on who and what we are at that point. The era of traditional eco-dynamics is quickly loosing it's relevancy.
QUOTE
As time progresses, we inherit more and more of Mother Nature's responsibility for the evolutionary processes on this planet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As time progresses, we inherit more and more of Mother Nature's responsibility for the evolutionary processes on this planet. |
Like the asteroid impacts of the past, maybe we are intended to be the facilitators of the next mass extinction event.
I think the Gaia Theory has a possibility of being true. And so I'm not sure then of what 'intent' is when considered with evolutionary processes. Or whether all life is to some degree conscious or sentient as it recoils from threat and toward continuance, as all life does to the best of it's respective ability and environmental awareness. Can 'intent' be an unconscious survival primer for evolution itself? We do not think in those terms, but there may be a 'genetic intent' that has nothing to do with 'mind' at all. And maybe the id'ers are mistaking it for a preconceived plan rather than a 'naturally' smart evolution: biology as a hybrid of chemistry, continually re-inventing itself, to it's benefit and not it's demise. The choice, even a mistaken one, is always made to further itself. Isn't this a choice being made and not randomness? ( I do not hold to a Cosmic Mother Nature which would be the only one responsible for incoming asteroids, and I see our planet's biota, to the best of it's ability, always having recovered from epochal events, events it has nothing to do with.)
If we allow for this 'unconscious intent' to be part of the evolutionary mechanism, humanity is both part of natural intent as well as hybridizers/mutators of intent; we've applied massive sentience to it. Evolution of thinking is as apparent as evolution of bodies. And with that comes the onus of responsibility, since we can willingly destroy the world - a first for any species.
The easy way of looking at this is to say that whatever we do it's part of Nature's unfolding because we are part of Nature. Pragmatically though, we should use this evolutionary arising of sentient thinking to do our best to exist in the most non-interfering way since the evolutionary system has proven most durable, and everything plays it's part even though it doesn't look that way. There's a lot of argument over overpopulation, but we potentially have the means to support many billions more of us; we simply are collectively moronic when it comes to economy and efficiency. But expanding technology, especially it's widespread applications, as well as our own self-made consequences, will make it happen. This is a good place to say hooray for all the scientists and engineers who create technology, that every one of us use every day.
We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive? Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
I don't know how to answer this, but I do feel that until the truth is known, I would rather err on the side of 'live and let live', grant other species their lives, and fully expect that technology plus compassion plus a universal love and charity towards our fellow creatures can contribute to the easing of the hardships in their own natural lives, like it is for ours. Do not underestimate what we will be able to do.
We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive? Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
I don't know how to answer this, but I do feel that until the truth is known, I would rather err on the side of 'live and let live', grant other species their lives, and fully expect that technology plus compassion plus a universal love and charity towards our fellow creatures can contribute to the easing of the hardships in their own natural lives, like it is for ours. Do not underestimate what we will be able to do. It would be nice some day to have fair consistent treatment of all valued life.
Exactly what I mean. And there is valued life that is no longer with us, and could even now easily be but for us. No, I don't presently see the need to clone a T. Rex, but see a great need ie to bring back all the little birds that are gone - down the gullets of explorer's men. And to bring back these little birds for their own selves, to move about and sing and to care tenderly for their young - things we like to do too. To be alive.
I do not hold to a Cosmic Mother Nature which would be the only one responsible for incoming asteroids, and I see our planet's biota, to the best of it's ability, always having recovered from epochal events, events it has nothing to do with.
I think the Gaia Theory has a possibility of being true. And so I'm not sure then of what 'intent' is when considered with evolutionary processes. Or whether all life is to some degree conscious or sentient as it recoils from threat and toward continuance, as all life does to the best of it's respective ability and environmental awareness. Can 'intent' be an unconscious survival primer for evolution itself? We do not think in those terms, but there may be a 'genetic intent' that has nothing to do with 'mind' at all. And maybe the id'ers are mistaking it for a preconceived plan rather than a 'naturally' smart evolution: biology as a hybrid of chemistry, continually re-inventing itself, to it's benefit and not it's demise. The choice, even a mistaken one, is always made to further itself. Isn't this a choice being made and not randomness? ( I do not hold to a Cosmic Mother Nature which would be the only one responsible for incoming asteroids, and I see our planet's biota, to the best of it's ability, always having recovered from epochal events, events it has nothing to do with.)
If we allow for this 'unconscious intent' to be part of the evolutionary mechanism, humanity is both part of natural intent as well as hybridizers/mutators of intent; we've applied massive sentience to it. Evolution of thinking is as apparent as evolution of bodies. And with that comes the onus of responsibility, since we can willingly destroy the world - a first for any species.
The easy way of looking at this is to say that whatever we do it's part of Nature's unfolding because we are part of Nature. Pragmatically though, we should use this evolutionary arising of sentient thinking to do our best to exist in the most non-interfering way since the evolutionary system has proven most durable, and everything plays it's part even though it doesn't look that way. There's a lot of argument over overpopulation, but we potentially have the means to support many billions more of us; we simply are collectively moronic when it comes to economy and efficiency. But expanding technology, especially it's widespread applications, as well as our own self-made consequences, will make it happen. This is a good place to say hooray for all the scientists and engineers who create technology, that every one of us use every day.
QUOTE
By incorporating the genetic qualities of our fellow species into us or our creations, are we not furthering their evolution as well?
We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive? Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
I don't know how to answer this, but I do feel that until the truth is known, I would rather err on the side of 'live and let live', grant other species their lives, and fully expect that technology plus compassion plus a universal love and charity towards our fellow creatures can contribute to the easing of the hardships in their own natural lives, like it is for ours. Do not underestimate what we will be able to do.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By incorporating the genetic qualities of our fellow species into us or our creations, are we not furthering their evolution as well? |
We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive? Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
I don't know how to answer this, but I do feel that until the truth is known, I would rather err on the side of 'live and let live', grant other species their lives, and fully expect that technology plus compassion plus a universal love and charity towards our fellow creatures can contribute to the easing of the hardships in their own natural lives, like it is for ours. Do not underestimate what we will be able to do. It would be nice some day to have fair consistent treatment of all valued life.
Exactly what I mean. And there is valued life that is no longer with us, and could even now easily be but for us. No, I don't presently see the need to clone a T. Rex, but see a great need ie to bring back all the little birds that are gone - down the gullets of explorer's men. And to bring back these little birds for their own selves, to move about and sing and to care tenderly for their young - things we like to do too. To be alive.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 22 2008, 08:42 PM)
I do not hold to a Cosmic Mother Nature which would be the only one responsible for incoming asteroids, and I see our planet's biota, to the best of it's ability, always having recovered from epochal events, events it has nothing to do with.
I don't ascribe to the notion of a cosmic metaphysical presence either. My use of Mother Nature was a metaphor for the collection of universal forces that govern our existence. There will come a time when the planet's biota will not survive cosmic destiny. Whatever life is left on the planet 500 million years from now, won't have a chance to recover. From that time forward, increasing solar output will slowly transform the Earth's environment into that of Venus.
QUOTE
Pragmatically though, we should use this evolutionary arising of sentient thinking to do our best to exist in the most non-interfering way since the evolutionary system has proven most durable, and everything plays it's part even though it doesn't look that way.
The problem is that that same sentient thinking has resulted in the past and present behavior that has led to the demise of numerous species and habitats. Here is a prime example of this type of thinking.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pragmatically though, we should use this evolutionary arising of sentient thinking to do our best to exist in the most non-interfering way since the evolutionary system has proven most durable, and everything plays it's part even though it doesn't look that way. |
The problem is that that same sentient thinking has resulted in the past and present behavior that has led to the demise of numerous species and habitats. Here is a prime example of this type of thinking.There's a lot of argument over overpopulation, but we potentially have the means to support many billions more of us; we simply are collectively moronic when it comes to economy and efficiency.
Why is it that some people feel the need to keep human population numbers in the multi-billions? I can think of no other animal species of similar proportions that has ever existed in such large numbers? And, as if numbers even mattered to the survival or well being of the total population. 90% of global resources are used and produced by only a third of the population, leaving the remaining two thirds irrelevant in regards to their existence. Thus a population of 2 billion, practicing greater efficiency, would have even less of a negative impact on the natural world.
QUOTE
We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive?
I can't think of an example of an animal that when faced with mortal danger, did not resist that threat as forcefully as any human. So yes, I think they prefer life. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are adding to their genetic contribution, but I guess the real question is, do we think they want to be alive? I understand the brutality of predator/prey. But does a rabbit want to be alive until the fox arrives? How can we determine this? Does your dog or cat seem like they want to be alive? Do we believe that an animal has to be domesticated before it wants to be alive? |
I can't think of an example of an animal that when faced with mortal danger, did not resist that threat as forcefully as any human. So yes, I think they prefer life.
Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
Or are animals helpless victims of genetics, possessors of unwanted life thrust on them, forced by evolution itself to protect that which they never asked for, slaves to their step on the evolutionary ladder?
Once our genetic or manufactured successor arrives, we'll be in the same boat, just as our ancestors before us.
Recreating the Thylacine:
- Nobody has a clear idea of how to do it
- But I suppose we will manage it within my lifetime
I like to take as a comparison basis the state of the art when I began playing with technology 35 years ago. Chips were scarce, digital technology nonexistent excepted in a few huge computers. DNA was new, viruses were new, prions weren't discovered. Physicians had to open bodies to see within, and no cancer was curable.
And of course, genetic engineering didn't exist at all, so it is improving quickly. Within the next 35 years, it will probably be possible to create any DNA sequence and the corresponding being.
-----------------
It is no single bit of chance that people chose the Thylacine.
It has disappeared recently, so the last beings were conserved under known and relatively good conditions.
It was adapted to the present environment.
It is no important threat to humans.
These are definite advantages over the Mammoth, for instance.
So though some people suggested to recreate a Mammoth from preserved DNA pieces and let carry it by an elephant, the most advanced attempts have been made on the Thylacine. All have abandoned up to now, but my bet is that one will succeed.
-----------------
Much less fun is that we'll be technically able at some time to recreate the full DNA of the common ancestor of many humans - for instance, all bearing the name Sayed, or Cohen. And then, we'll be at serious trouble.
I just hope that humans are little determined by their DNA, and the resulting person will decide to be a paraglider champion or a grocer.
- Nobody has a clear idea of how to do it
- But I suppose we will manage it within my lifetime
I like to take as a comparison basis the state of the art when I began playing with technology 35 years ago. Chips were scarce, digital technology nonexistent excepted in a few huge computers. DNA was new, viruses were new, prions weren't discovered. Physicians had to open bodies to see within, and no cancer was curable.
And of course, genetic engineering didn't exist at all, so it is improving quickly. Within the next 35 years, it will probably be possible to create any DNA sequence and the corresponding being.
-----------------
It is no single bit of chance that people chose the Thylacine.
It has disappeared recently, so the last beings were conserved under known and relatively good conditions.
It was adapted to the present environment.
It is no important threat to humans.
These are definite advantages over the Mammoth, for instance.
So though some people suggested to recreate a Mammoth from preserved DNA pieces and let carry it by an elephant, the most advanced attempts have been made on the Thylacine. All have abandoned up to now, but my bet is that one will succeed.
-----------------
Much less fun is that we'll be technically able at some time to recreate the full DNA of the common ancestor of many humans - for instance, all bearing the name Sayed, or Cohen. And then, we'll be at serious trouble.
I just hope that humans are little determined by their DNA, and the resulting person will decide to be a paraglider champion or a grocer.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.