Can we bring back lost species?

[@theJellyjoker]

I would terraform Mars and put all the cloned animals there.

[@YUInoRUIDO]

jurassic planet

[@spartan1010101]

I think species that were directly exterminated by human interference like with hunting and direct habitat destruction should be brought back, however species that were indirectly wiped out should remain extinct because they were not fit to survive the new state of the world.

[@martactr]

I agree with you. However, I believe before bringing back extincted animals we should study the consequences that these actions might cause to see whether it would be beneficial for the current environment and to study its possible negative effects. We would also have to consider how long have these animals been extincted to consider whether they would fit in the present Earth... This is actually a really controversial matter.

[@spartan1010101]

***** Well the ones that we directly removed would not have been any older than 100 or 200 years old in my opinion because mass firearms really made the difference in how efficiently we took out populations. Obviously I agree with you on studying the effects of a reintroduction of a species that has been extinct for such a long period of time as well. Most of the time the ecosystem has morphed around the missing pieces and other species replaced the extinct one, however some, like the African Black Rhino are relatively new to extinction and I think species that should just be a given.

[@allen7615]

An animal that’s long gone has it’s spot in the ecosystem taken by another species to thrive. If we introduce these deextincted animals, they can be considered an invasive species that can disrupt the existing food chain/ecosystem of the existing species.

[@alvincay100]

Bring back Harambe

[@thehoundofthegamingvilles2012]

Why not

[@MsKassandraKotaku]

The video brings up questions like what they eat, but if we go back far enough, the general planetary environment has changed as well making it impossible for some animals to exist without genetic modification. Is that even ethical to do? There are so many questions when it comes to this. What would happen to some of our current species as well? Would they mix or would they become extinct due to the introduction of the old/new species. Would we then be clamoring to bring them back since we were the root cause of their demise? Just because we can may not mean we should.

[@sadyscraft]

Just bring back every extinct creature its cool to have one as a pet

[@VikasVJois]

You should illustrate a video (or more) for TED-Ed

[@moniquerodrigues5138]

Hey guys.. I would love to see some explanation about the nobel prize winner works on physics, chemistry and biology! Love your work!

[@OmarElfareh]

Harambe we're working on bringing you back

[@Tjousk]

squeaky tree earth makes me happy.

[@sanctamachina]

Yes we should bring back all of the tasty meats. Besides, de-extinction helps further our understanding of customized genetics. One day the entire concept of species will be moot through our lab producing whatever animals are best to service our tasks.

[@Appletank8]

I would welcome you ... to Jurassic Park.

[@LightDhampire]

Remember, it's Raptors which have Avian descendants. Do we really want Dino-chickens, who may not be satisfied with feed, but the tasty drumsticks of their farmers?

[@Appletank8]

Clearly, we need to make the feed taste like the drumsticks of their farmers.

[@karsakasdasfa6474]

Unfortunately that won't be possible because half life of dna from bone is around 521 year long so in a dinosaur that died 65mil years ago you would have 0.00008% of it's dna left.

[@brandonhall6084]

Throwback Thursday: Jurassic style

[@vojtechpikal183]

Franky, I dont se difference between deexticion, and introdocing new speecies to enviroment or engeneering new speecise through selective breeding, so no ethical chalange there.

I would definitely bring back the dinosaurs and maybe open up restaurant serving T.Rex eggs in order to retire from my exhausting PhD.

[@Navarro1030]

I think is more than fair to bring back animals that were directly extinct by the modern man, the ones tha died off from the 1800s to now. They were almost all hunt to extinction for sport or died because of men tearing their habitat. They could be reintroduced to the fragments of undisturbed habitat or go to zoos. If I could choose one it would be the dodo

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

I sort of feel like any science that isnt focused on curing disease and death or making energy is almost wasteful...

[@sevret313]

Not really. The science to make this possible would definitely bring forth other advances in biology.

[@wildshape]

Reviving creatures from dead is kind of fighting of dead.

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

sevret313. indeed. Im all for it if that is a likely outcome. Otherwise, I don't see the value.

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

+Baddaby thats very true, but Im curious how often that happens.

[@Baddaby]

VERY often. By your logic the whole systematics area is pure garbage. Naming things? What a waste. Resolving lots and lots of relationships between lineages of living beings? Pfff Well, without it there's no basis for ecology, conservation projects, many compounds used on medicines and antibiotics wouldn't be discovered so soon because people tend to look for them in groups close to another being that produces one of them and so on

[@slyfly3732]

yeah the "cloning process of growing an animal inside of another will get dropped" once we can 3d print organs. they will be able to 3d print a dinosaur carcus, although it will be human designed layer by layer. it will still be possible. and hopfully theyll beable to shock the heart to get it beating

[@gregg4]

This was too long to be a tweet and too short to be a youtube video.

[@Neander104]

We need a backup planet, that's all :)

[@SpaRool]

Bring em' back yo

[@db7213]

What would I do? I would gather as the DNA from as many soon to be extinct species as possible so humans don't need to worry about preserving their habitats.

[@felherc]

rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/06/attack-of-clones.html

[@monstersaboveme4072]

Another problem in reviving extinct species is: Animals learn behaviour crucial to their survival from their parents. That would be impossible in this case, because there is noone to teach them and we don't know much about the behaviour of an extinct animal, so the entire species would have to learn everything from scratch, including what to eat and what not. We'd have to keep producing them in labs until a stable population is established, which could take decades, because many of them would die for "stupid" reasons in the wild. Just because they lack experience and knowledge.. Nevertheless I'd like to see us make species unextinct. It's quite interesting.

[@anthonystewart7446]

leave the dead alone.... Use the tech to save species like the polar bears and bees from extinction.

[@spliter88]

With de-extinction we should go as far as to create dinosaurs and no more.

[@ArtArtisian]

Basically - zoos and perhaps academia. Maybe in the wild when they would compete with pests? The extinct species are mostly interesting for study imo.

[@纽约新华人传媒]

XD I will bring back Pokémon go!!! -Pikachu- Eviee ✔️

[@thehoundofthegamingvilles2012]

0:06 *Vsauce music starts playing*

[@xapemanx]

We need to use this technology to resurrect Harambe

[@JesusMartinez-rr2ry]

Just try to build time machines to prevent humans from making tasmanian tigers, dodo birds, passenger pigeons, and other species go extinct in the first place

[@occooldavidson2830]

Look don’t bring back the t-Rex because they well come cross a deadly path They can also out run us humans but I was thinking about plant aterse this might be doom in also that we don’t know fully about what they ate or how fast they can chase you

[@unvergebeneid]

Well, non-avian dinos are off the table I'm afraid. We might of course at some point be able to design animals that look like dinosaurs but the DNA is gone forever. The only way I see for the very far future is to reconstruct the proteome somehow because that seems to preserve somewhat better but we'll have laser guns and jetpacks by then.

[@ABitOfTheUniverse]

Why should they be off the table? I'd love to know what a Triceratops tasted like, maybe braised with amber and seasoned with some archaefructus. Sounds delicious!

[@unvergebeneid]

ABitOfTheUniverse Uhm ... did you read more than the first sentence of my comment? Because it's not a "should not" but a "cannot."

[@ABitOfTheUniverse]

Penny Lane One thing I've learned about science in the last 30 years of studying it's history and seeing the developments we've made, even in my lifetime, is that, life finds a way. We may not know it now, but I will give you an example, say we find a bit of trike DNA in a fossil, it's only 1% of a complete chain of trike DNA, which would be what, like 2 billion of the typical 200 billion atoms or so? Anyway, those 2 billion atoms may not even need to be bonded into one single fragment, but for the sake of example, let's say they still all. That is just one percent of one strand. Now if we find 1000 other fragments, each, for example only 1% of the whole, some may be that 1% between 0.15 and 1.15, or 0.98 to 1.98, well, we take the stuff from 0.98 to 1.15, line them up and see that they match, now we have 0.15 to 1.98, with several other pieces that confirm the section between 0.98 and 1.15 are consistently a match... Penny, you're smart, you see where I'm going with this. Point being, what we think is impossible today may very well not be impossible tomorrow, especially with all the advances we are making in science, tech, engineering and math, that can be applicable to our knowledge of DNA and it's manipulation. Then there is logic. There are bound to be patterns in DNA that we can use before we even have 100% of our trike, for instance. Let's say we never find that piece from 1.15 to 1.16, if 1% is 2 billion atoms, that 0.01% would be 20 million atoms, which, at first is nothing to scoff at, but considering most of that DNA is going to be either the rails or the rungs of the ladder and we know what they are limited to, this would make filling in those 20 million atoms far simpler a task. We run those possibilities through some algorithms via computers, distribute the workload over thousands of graphics cards offered by citizen scientists, and in no time, we have the most likely candidates for our missing segment. You want 100% certainly, you're probably never going to get it, but even life doesn't make 100% certain copies of it's own organisms. Every species has an array of diversity within it and we may even be able to create a range from actual sample so narrow that we can be more sure we've made a trike than even nature would have been, through the process of sexual reproduction. It's not off the table.

[@unvergebeneid]

ABitOfTheUniverse Like I said, I can see this happening with the proteome but not with the genome. It doesn't really matter because it's ultimately the proteome we care about to recreate something but it's still very much in the realm of science fiction. The world will be unrecognizable by the time we recreate a dinosaur and most likely, there won't be such a thing as a little boy fascinated by dinosaurs anymore.

[@ABitOfTheUniverse]

Curious, I've asked this of a lot of people, but in regards to your last sentence, what do you imagine, given every trend you know, will be the state of life and the universe as a result of beings from Earth, in, say, a thousand, a million and 1 billion years? If you;re only willing to answer one of those time periods, let's shoot for a billion years from now, but if you can answer all but are most comfortable, say, responding to 1,000, then by all means, spend the most of your typing on that. And I do mean, given everything there is to consider, not just humans, but, of course, we could easily become a more important factor than say, even the Earth's geologic progress or even the Sun's evolution, given enough time. Do you think humans, or, perhaps even all life, will be supplanted by our technology, given a certain amount of time? If so, how long do you imagine it will take, given our ambition, ignorance or our fears? All things that might speed up or slow down this will be relevant. Are you a pessimist? Do you think we will wreck this world via wars, perhaps even before we have settled another world? Do you think we will even settle other worlds, star system or even reached other galaxies? And be we, of course, I don't mean homo sapiens, but whatever form beings from this world take by then. Are you for, or against transhumanism, and do you think the rest of the world will go along with your sentiments of the idea? I am interested. I know you watch, and type, a lot, in many similar channels as I, and I know you know I know. =3 Which is why I value your response. So if you would, please, take your time, think about the past, present and future for a little while and share your thoughts with me, and anyone else that may potentially come upon this thread.

[@ryanbiggs5479]

What would jesus do?

[@mmmbbb5680]

flip a table, be white even when youre from the middle-east and come back from the dead anywhere up to 25 years before he dies

[@illustriouschin]

small minds would deny

[@RAGHAVENDRASINGH17]

Nope, don't mess with mighty nature

[@coldsobanoodle7407]

I would of course raise an army of dinosaurs if the technology was developed even further to where even extremely decrepit DNA can be used.

[@halaambe]

don't worry. islam is going to take over the world and all these scientific research and other things that are against god will be abolished.

[@kanashiokoroshi2741]

Can has Jurassic World?

[@maximummarklee]

These are valid pursuits, but entirely impractical as society cannot even save itself from a doomed future due to the example of ignoring climate change. When it became politicized, it was doomed to endless debate on basic merits, and because the science community itself is apolitical and ignorant of the nuances of affecting change in a country strangled by political extremism in America, the science deniers' attitudes have spread like a cancer across the globe and the resulting delays have allowed the planet's environmental evolution to exceed the tipping point and literally doom us to a very bad (and preventable) outcome where suffering, death, property damage and financial repercussions are inevitable. All because of the mentality of "instant gratification" has convinced ignorant people that evolutionary processes do not threaten us since it so gradual - until it isn't - when cascading effects snowball into rapid decline.

[@kismacska23]

What's the exact date for your doomsday scenario? I am old enough to remember literature from the seventies that predicted no gas at all, or at least not for the masses by 1990. Then it was 2000s, then something around 2020. According to some of those doomsayers London should be underwater by now, and Italy should be mostly a desert. Maybe human intervention is just marginal and the planet adapts just fine to anything all the negligible meatballs will ever do.

[@Baddaby]

This is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible ideias humankind has ever had. And how they're fucking marketing this idead is beyong ridiculous. These animals have been extinct for a long time, some that they're trying, like the Whoolly Mammoth are extinct for more than 10.000 years. The habitats that they lived in are COMPLETELY different now from what they were when they were alive. Different species have adapted to those habitats, different species predominances have taken place and different food chains and ecological balances have been estabilished. Releasing them into the wild would just wreck those habitats, completely, for species that are alive now. Again, one of the most irresponsible things human kind is doing and has ever done.

[@kismacska23]

Some birds die because of human intervention, others actually build new nests in cities that they could not build in "natural habitats". Some even adapt by changing their color for example. You seriously overestimate the potential damage of humanity. Species developed, thrived and died out by the millions before we could even make fire.

[@Baddaby]

It's not because some species adapt that all do. A minority of animals can adapt to cities actually.

[@emmanuelecrespan2935]

bring back them all

[@lalogreiner]

The video doesn't answer the question.

[@przemysawszymusik1516]

simple. bring back species that died becouce of humans and put them in reserves. if there habitat is destroyed lets try to recreate it. aurochs yes tyranosaurus no

[@Baddaby]

Habitats are never destroyed, always changed. Different balances with different species living there. Releasing those creatures would only fuck things more.

[@przemysawszymusik1516]

wisents have been reintroduced to many natural reserves in europe - nothing fucked up there

[@penand_paper6661]

Here is my opinion:

[@coldsobanoodle7407]

I would of course raise an army of dinosaurs if the technology was developed even further to where even extremely decrepit DNA can be used.