If you dunnart know they were bringing back the thylacine

they are not making exact copies of looong gone creatures, however with what is left they are making ecosystem saving creatures in the form of these creatures (part of that help is these creatures) however if an ecosystem has since changed but is still in trouble, then they will edit these creatures in a way that will help them survive and also have a great impact on the environment.
 
Jayden8763 said:
they are not making exact copies of looong gone creatures, however with what is left they are making ecosystem saving creatures in the form of these creatures (part of that help is these creatures) however if an ecosystem has since changed but is still in trouble, then they will edit these creatures in a way that will help them survive and also have a great impact on the environment.
Click to expand...
These creatures are incapable of saving ecosystems, because their ecosystems are already long gone. Their ecosystems aren't in trouble, they're just gone.

You also seem to be under the impression that ecosystems are a lot simpler than they are, and that the "good" path forward is obvious. This is almost never the case. Ecosystems are far, far more complex than that. Ecosystems are perhaps the most complex systems on Earth, and our judge of a "good" ecosystem in an anthropocentric one (as is our perception of an unhealthy one, frankly).

We also barely even have a clue what genes correspond to ecological changes in living species, let alone extinct ones.
 
birdsandbats said:
These creatures are incapable of saving ecosystems, because their ecosystems are already long gone. Their ecosystems aren't in trouble, they're just gone.

You also seem to be under the impression that ecosystems are a lot simpler than they are, and that the "good" path forward is obvious. This is almost never the case. Ecosystems are far, far more complex than that. Ecosystems are perhaps the most complex systems on Earth, and our judge of a "good" ecosystem in an anthropocentric one (as is our perception of an unhealthy one, frankly).

We also barely even have a clue what genes correspond to ecological changes in living species, let alone extinct ones.
Click to expand...

i know, however when a creature is to go extinct, that fragile balance of the ecosystem breaks in some way shape or form.
 
Jayden8763 said:
i know, however when a creature is to go extinct, that fragile balance of the ecosystem breaks in some way shape or form.
Click to expand...
Well it isn't quite that simple either. I'm not going to drag you into an advanced ecology lesson here, but fundamentally, yes, the ecosystem changes, but it's not really accurate to say that it breaks, nor that the balance of an ecosystem is delicate.
 
Jayden8763 said:
colossal is also editing creatures with traits that help save ecosystems, like certain ones in asia
Click to expand...
If that's what they're doing, then were are the animals? Also there is no proof that these animals will "save" any ecosystems and it seems far more likely they will do nothing of the sort.
 
birdsandbats said:
The list that Colossal has put together looks suspiciously like a list of animals that sound cool to an investor and not an ecologically guided list.
Click to expand...
I don’t even understand why they aren’t even picking something as easy as a quagga or nominate pyrenean ibex. I known that the investors won’t find those interesting, but it’s not like normies understand how things go (like confusing the northern white rhinoceros with all white rhinoceroses for example). A portfolio with success would be better for investors than some high promises.
 
Jayden8763 said:
colossal is also editing creatures with traits that help save ecosystems, like certain ones in asia
Click to expand...
Can you explain in what way you think Tasmanian ecosystems are collapsing? What species are at risk due to the Thylacine being exterminated? What Asian ecosystems are being helped by Colossal? How?
Basically contrary to popular belief, ecosystems are not stabilised systems; they are continually being perturbed. Furthermore, individual populations are continually evolving, so as they change then the ecosystem will change. Thus there is no steady state end point to be aimed for. This is not to say that all changes are ok, or that no environmental restorations are worthwhile, but that there are limits.
 
It's much probable, of value, and cost efficient to protect and conserve our fragile ecosystem rather than to spend an extrodinary amount of money on de-extinction in the name of conservation and restoring habitat. If introduced back the thylacine really could help with that, then introducing an existing medium-sized carnivore thats not extinct would do too (not saying we should just introduce jackals to tasmania, but we have no reason to believe it'll do worse than a thylacine population on this aspect). Is de-extinction a cool idea? yeah! Could it be done? possibly with a lot of money and effort put into it. Is it worth it in the sense of conservation? definitely not
 
Jayden8763 said:
colossal is also editing creatures with traits that help save ecosystems, like certain ones in asia
Click to expand...
If that is true - and likely isn't - are we talking tapirs elephants, dholes, tigers or what?

You've been rather generic unless I missed it in the previous messages (that, for the record, I have no intention on picking up); however the point of my reply is to address the statement <<colossal is also editing creatures with traits that help save ecosystems>>, what are you exactly implying here?

Are the traits supposed to save the ecosystem? In which way? Or are the modified animals supposed to "help" the ecosystem? What is your idea of saving an ecosystem? It's not as specific as, say, restoring an ecosystem, which is what conservation does, but with ecosystems that still exist and have not suffered from the loss of impactful species for more than a millennia (or, in the case of thylacine, a few centuries).

I would suggest you study again what the definition of an ecosystem is and how it works, it doesn't need a fake hero to "save" it when it's already dead.

What you and other Colossus wannabe fans want - and here I'm being accusative - is cool mega beasts to look at when going to a knockoff Jurassic Park, because let's be honest, if these animals are made, do you really, without a doubt, think that we can just dump them in the middle of nowhere to "save" the ecosystem?

These animals, if they even will be a fraction of what they're supposed to be, have not roamed Earth for a huge period of time, the microbes, the climate, the diseases, the predator pressures and an infinite amount of other visible and invisible factors have changed; if they will even survive do you not think about the possible ecological disasters that these animals could cause to actually vulnerable ecosystems? It's already a problem that mankind (with different degrees of blame) has drastically changed the environment for its own profit with some impacts being less than crucial for our lives.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I would gladly swap Oreos, McDonald or Burger King for a healthier and more nature-rich world, there is no need to look at a very distant past that is not coming back unless life finds the same favourable conditions that once were.

What you are doing is being a fanboy of a company that, despite its good sides, is promising "seas and mountains" as we say in Italy when a politician promises impossible things.
 
Jayden8763 said:
as for the behaviours, colossal will and has used real preserved specimens to ensure that the instincts of the thylacine are present within Colossal's thylacines
Click to expand...
Sorry to be a bit blunt, but that's not a thing.

Even if they are able to create a perfectly cloned replica of a thylacine, which doesn't sound like what's being promised, there's no guarantee that the animals would be behaviorally competent to survive in the wild. It's not just a question of instinct, it's that we have no idea how much learning goes into a thylacine learning how to be a thylacine. For example, how involved were females in teaching joeys how to hunt? If all of the behavior an animal needed in order to survive was instinctual, zoo-based reintro programs would enjoy much greater success than they currently do. For example, thick-billed parrots used for the earliest reintro programs for that species - 100% genetically identical to wild parrots, only a few generations removed from the wild, etc - still suffered due to not being competent at either exploiting wild food sources or evading natural predators. There's a reason that the majority of reintro programs have been focused on inverts, fish, and herps, which have less parental care and social learning.

I'd also question the claim that Tasmania is doomed without reintroduced, cloned thylacines. The fact is, not only has the species been extinct since the 1930s and the ecosystem has plugged along, but the thylacine was *functionally* extinct for years before that - even when there were a few animals in the wild, even breeding groups, they existed in such low numbers that they were unable to fulfill their ecological role. In other words, as far as most of the other species in Tasmania were concerned, the last few thylacines might as well as not have been there, for all of the ecological impact that they were having.

One other note - as awesome as it would be to see a thylacine (they were among my favorite animals as a child), I fear the implications of this technology on mainstream conservation efforts. I feel like the public could easily misunderstand the applicability of cloning for rewilding and decide that they don't really care much about the plight of endangered species. "Who cares if vaquita, or Ethiopian wolves, or saola go extinct? If they do, we'll just clone them and bring them back!" - not understanding how difficult, expensive, and unreliable the process would be, and how much the environment would continue to degrade in the meantime.

Your enthusiasm for this project is palpable... but I'd be cautious of getting your hopes up too much.
 
Tetzoo Quizzer said:
Can you explain in what way you think Tasmanian ecosystems are collapsing? What species are at risk due to the Thylacine being exterminated? What Asian ecosystems are being helped by Colossal? How?
Basically contrary to popular belief, ecosystems are not stabilised systems; they are continually being perturbed. Furthermore, individual populations are continually evolving, so as they change then the ecosystem will change. Thus there is no steady state end point to be aimed for. This is not to say that all changes are ok, or that no environmental restorations are worthwhile, but that there are limits.
Click to expand...


with estimates that certain species in Tasmania are becoming overpopulated due to a lack of apex predators within the ecosystems which means that Tasmania could go through a problem similar to the hare problem in mainland Australia
 
Jayden8763 said:
with estimates that certain species in Tasmania are becoming overpopulated due to a lack of apex predators within the ecosystems which means that Tasmania could go through a problem similar to the hare problem in mainland Australia
Click to expand...
"a lack", "could", too generic, and I'm not even touching the syntax of your sentence.

Also what are the numerous - that you imply - ecosystems that are """suffering""" from the lack of thylacines in Tasmania?
I'm pretty sure the marine ecosystems are doing fine without it.
 
Jayden8763 said:
with estimates that certain species in Tasmania are becoming overpopulated due to a lack of apex predators within the ecosystems which means that Tasmania could go through a problem similar to the hare problem in mainland Australia
Click to expand...

Even *if* you were correct, weasel words such as "estimates that" and "could go through" are very different from your initial hyperbolic claims that:

Jayden8763 said:
without [the thylacine] Tasmanian ecosystems will crumble and every species in Tasmania will become critically endangered or extinct due to certain creature's overpopulation
Click to expand...

....complete with repeated use of the term "will", with "every" thrown in there too :rolleyes:

As previously noted elsewhere, it is incredibly obvious that you are very enthusiastic, but posting the way you have been - refusing to take criticism/feedback, being rigid in your claims, repeated use of hyperbole, and reluctance to admit to being wrong - isn't going to impress people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayden8763 said:
also, as for the Wooly mammoth, it is not an exact copy of a Wooly mammoth, but instead a much more stable and prepared mammoth for when it comes to playing a part in it's ecosystem. And most of the creatures that Colossal is bringing back are necessary. Take the thylacine for example, with the only apex predator left on Tasmania being the Tasmanian devil which is critically endangered, the thylacine is needed to help keep the island in balance. And whether the thylacine is an exact copy, it doesn't matter as colossal has confirmed that with what they have so far, it will be maybe about a 0.1% difference and even then, we still need this creature as without it, Tasmanian ecosystems will crumble and every species in Tasmania will become critically endangered or extinct due to certain creature's overpopulation. The thylacine was driven to extinction by humans because they thought that they ate farmer's sheep....
but a lot of you should know that they never have eaten sheep (in the wild), so they were driven to extinction for the wrong reason meaning that we should bring them back as they are needed.
Click to expand...

How does a heavily modified wooly mammoth made appropriate for today's world contribute anything to a global ecosystem beyond what conservation of, say, elephants would? Mammoths have not been part of any ecosystem for thousands of years. If this company do end up producing mammoths it will be for little more than theme parks. The elephants used to produce them will be turned into little more than farm animals. If it's not an exact copy what is this thing that's being produced and what is it really for? And where are all these elephants to carry them coming from?

I'd argue this researtch endangers rather than contributes to conservation because clever folk can bring back any animal that goes extinct by producing an approximation of an animal based on how it 'should' now live. Who cares if habitats get destroyed and animals go extinct, they can be restored somewhere else as a broad copy that suits for a few million dollars.

This whole thing is just further evidence for me that people often do pointless things with a careful eye on profitability. It's so cynically money lead that Colossal has spun up companies (they call them 'endevours') just to supply other parts of itself, all separate businesses seeking separate investments.

You underline the term critically endangered when referring to Tasmanian Devils in your post. Isn't it the case that the Tasmanian devil would probably be far less endangered if all the money being spent to recreate the Thylacine was spent on conserving Devils instead. So why don't Colossal just do that instead?
 
Jayden8763 said:
with estimates that certain species in Tasmania are becoming overpopulated due to a lack of apex predators within the ecosystems which means that Tasmania could go through a problem similar to the hare problem in mainland Australia
Click to expand...

Let's take 2 critically endangered species from Tasmania: the Swift parrot and the Orange-bellied parrot. Both of them suffering from habitat destruction and the first also from a species introduced from the mainland. The return of the Thylacine will not help with the first problem (a change in forestry practices and habitat restoration would be more appropriate for those) and I fail to see how Thylacines will help to reduce the impact of a small arboreal marsupial. There is no scientific evidence Thylacines never preyed upon sugargliders when they still lived on the mainland, but looking at the atonomy of the species it seems unlikely.

So would the re-introduction of Thylacine help with saving these 2 CE species in Tasmania? No. And also some of the other species would benefit a lot more from a change in land-use practices and habitat restoration. Research could help with some of the specific challenges, but not the programme on trying to re-create a Thylacine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top