Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is this a sign? and of what?
I'll drop this here, has relevance to the 'argument'.  Kind of. It popped up in the ABC news email. 

Shades of Jurassic Park?

There's more to 'saving' species than people are thinking about.  There is a reason they're heading for extinction and there is no point in saving them unless the reason is removed from the equation.   Who's up for the job of doing anything about that? ... other than various military regimes?


Would extinct animals be happy in the 21st century?


Some argue we have a moral duty to bring back extinct animals if we had the technology to do so, especially if our actions caused their original demise.
Mr Novak, however, says he isn't motivated by a sense of moral obligation.
"If you go down the road of moral obligation that just leads you into diverting a lot of effort into species that have no hope," he said.

Other scientists have significant concerns about animal welfare consequences of de-extinction efforts.
Even if an animal could be genetically engineered back into existence, would it thrive in the 21st century — especially if its habitat has been destroyed and food sources depleted?

There is a risk a species would be returned only to face extinction again. Or, perhaps worse, become an invasive species itself and cause others to disappear.

"The communities that currently exist have now evolved and adapted in the absence of those species. You're introducing something completely novel to them," Professor Ritchie said.
"There are a whole range of really complex ecological arguments and problems to think about."
(12-15-2018, 03:13 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  [quote='The Atheist' pid='56897' dateline='1544835903']

Did you actually read the article? It doesn't suggest dog bites will be more common.

Sorry TA but yes, it does say exactly that.


See the graph which includes dog and cat bites and pretty much glues the "likely" rise to be caused by domestic pets. .. 23% according to the graph.

You're still reading it all wrong - that graph is the percentage for current costs. Nothing to do with any increase, and you'll note the numbers add up to 100 = 100% of costs.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Oh well, if you're going to resort to numbers I'm out! [Image: yellow-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif]
Two is a number and a word, too.
(To belabor the point.)

2 is the second loneliest number you can ever do.

(I deduced that from an old pop song.)
Getting deeeeep.
I wonder why people mostly suck at having fun?- stanky
Someone will shoot him.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Here's some good news about the 'modelling' getting it wrong.

It must be fact cos it's in the Beeb.
(05-14-2019, 09:56 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Here's some good news about the 'modelling' getting it wrong.

Nope, just an aberration, of which there are many. You're following people like Trump who Tweets when it snows "Where's your global warming now???!!??"

Overall, glaciers continue to speed up, but within that, there's always going to be exceptions. Like the way it was 30 deg C in parts of Russia that never see 20 in a normal universe.

Also, given your propensity to leap on any bandwagon that looks like it might be a negative for the climate crowd, I wonder how you feel about this:
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)