Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

iwannagohome49 t1_ix9nnit wrote

I don't see why we can't just try again... Other than the one being cloned has arguably the worst luck in ibex history, last of her species, killed by a tree.

927

Mitthrawnuruo t1_ixbfwbs wrote

Honestly, some things should just be left to go. Things come and go, and always have.

Should we bring back dinosaurs? Absolutely. But if mosquitoes go, we should hasten them on their journey.

179

fostertheatom t1_ixbtlhs wrote

Any why exactly should we bring back the giant murder lizards? Keep em dead. Kill any that come back.

104

typos_are_coming t1_ixbzkh0 wrote

What? No, no, we could put them in a zoo where people can learn about them. Think about it, we could give safari and lab tours, and I can finally get to spend some quality time with my kids. It will be great. Everything is just great.

201

Jaggedmallard26 t1_ixc8ma4 wrote

We can call it "BILLY AND THE CLONOSAURUS"

52

Historical-Unit-6643 t1_ixchjnq wrote

No that's not it. How about we bring back a bunch of extinct dangerous animals and stick them all on an island where rich tourists can go. I don't see anything going wrong with that ifea

16

sakura608 t1_ixcl322 wrote

Got to be safe. Send in two paleontologists, a lawyer, and a phd in chaos theory to check things out. And… maybe the grandchildren while you’re at it

14

GenerallyAwfulHuman t1_ixclzs7 wrote

That sounds expensive. Can we pull in the budget for that from the IT department?

12

sakura608 t1_ixcxh2n wrote

We can run everything on Linux so we can save on licensing costs. Have all the software written by one senior engineer and severely underpay him, but give him unlimited access to the facilities, even the cryo chambers.

6

Wolfy5079 t1_ixdd0hx wrote

don't forget to admonish senior engineer for his own financial decisions when he asks for a pay rise.

6

Suojelusperkele t1_ixcit21 wrote

It depends.

Do they pay huge sums of money to get there, or do we get to vote who goes?

5

doubled2319888 t1_ixcla5z wrote

Can we vote on who goes and still charge them an arm and a leg?

4

tl01magic t1_ixck4s4 wrote

lol omg the "wealthy eccentrics" who like having "exotic animals" would lose their minds

1

elpajaroquemamais t1_ixcsxau wrote

Someone would steal the tech and quickly brand it and slap it on a lunchbox.

1

just_a_user49 t1_ixbw5il wrote

To realize we were completely wrong and they were actually giant dumb chickens.

28

Mitthrawnuruo t1_ixc0774 wrote

You obviously don’t realize that chickens are just murder birds.

11

CG1991 t1_ixc9teo wrote

Chickens are pieces of shit that will turn on one another at even the sign of a sniffle

8

lordoin t1_ixc3q3s wrote

they’re murder lizards only because you’re uncharismatic. I could easily befriend them and use them to smite my enemies.

15

leojava t1_ixdnd20 wrote

So they would still be murder lizards?

2

Bman10119 t1_ixbyhxi wrote

Because I want to know how grilled murder lizard tastes.

9

Hazi-Tazi t1_ixcdx3c wrote

probably a lot like chicken... or gator.

1

Nydelok t1_ixcafne wrote

I mean… we could bring back some Herbivores.

3

AbyssSun777 t1_ixcktyl wrote

did you just say absolutely to bringing back dinosaurs and 80 fucking people agreed with you?

16

srentiln t1_ixdic9l wrote

To be fair, the modern conditions of the earth would not allow dinosaurs to maintain normal activities outside special environmentally controlled enclosures.

8

imhereforthevotes t1_ixdp010 wrote

You don't know that...

1

srentiln t1_ixe7rog wrote

We know that the oxygen concentration in the modern day is not the same as it was in the times of the dinosaurs by a significant enough amount that their respiratory systems couldn't handle it.

3

imhereforthevotes t1_ixece8c wrote

holy shit I didn't realize this, at least for the late Cretaceous. Maybe we need to go farther back. Imagine all the really tired dinosaurs we'd have to deal with if we brought back the most recent ones.

1

SignificantCall9210 t1_ixc3m1v wrote

Jeff Golblum would say the samething, San Diego already got wrecked back in ‘97

1

shaving99 t1_ixcyrms wrote

I'd love if we brought back some dinosaurs

1

CannaPanda69 t1_ixd0t4i wrote

I hate to be that guy, but mosquitos are way more important of a resource on the food chain than most people give them credit for.

1

Baraga91 t1_ixdtzps wrote

Source this, please.

I want to believe you, but I also want to burn every mosquito to a crisp with a magnifying glass.

1

Datboij7_ t1_ixd8l1r wrote

You clearly haven't seen Jurassic Park...

1

Mitthrawnuruo t1_ixdbqnv wrote

I’ve seen and read it; and don’t believe it should be done on a small isolated South American island.

I would propose allowing it in Texas.

5

override367 t1_ixcu7vp wrote

oh this time lets give the ibex spider legs, the ability to regrow lost limbs, and a heart as black as coal

28

iwannagohome49 t1_ixcv60q wrote

Well it's a type of goat, so it's already got the heart as black as coal... So we're a third of the way there

14

SFXBTPD t1_ixcs49u wrote

Its probably down to the difficulty of finding another ibex enthusiast with deep pockets to sponsor the research

4

GenuisInDisguise t1_ixgjedt wrote

There is an entire world of dodgy black market experiments and labs which do cloning and bunch of prohibited stuff that only the richest get to enjoy.

1

ZeldaFan812 t1_ix9ekya wrote

Ibexit

699

TacTurtle t1_ix9ftw4 wrote

I-B-ex .... it’s right there in the name

edit: why is everyone so salty?

−54

ZeldaFan812 t1_ixbrckb wrote

I don't know, it doesn't exactly fit in the context but I enjoyed it

2

KainLexington t1_ix9g0lr wrote

These scientists should be ashamed for letting an entire species die under their watch!

379

MehtefaS t1_ixa8ax5 wrote

And it only took them 7 minutes!

118

Knull_Gorr t1_ixang9x wrote

The oil companies would be so proud.

64

TheguylikesBattlebot t1_ixb4b3s wrote

My favorite speedrun category is Cause Extinction for a species any% WR. Truly enthralling to watch.

15

Telephalsion t1_ixcbovc wrote

The game of life, extinction%, rarely played category. Nice to see such a strong run, that record will be hard to beat.

Other categories include tooluse%, death% (no suicide), death% and procreation%.

3

Perfect_Zone_4919 t1_ixa8gq5 wrote

How confused was St. Peter when this Ibex showed up. "I thought you fuckers were off the board"

265

demonardvark t1_ix9hc1p wrote

scientist: IT'S ALIVEEEEEEEEE HAHAHAHAHAH

zombie deer thing: coughs and dies

scientist: well shit......

205

a_drive t1_ixasduk wrote

Lol i know it's a bit but i love the thought that you think they brought a dead Ibex back to life

29

dayofthedead204 t1_ixa1j5c wrote

Scientist 1: "Why did someone let Jerry take the Ibex DNA sample? Everyone here knows he's a jinx! It's no wonder he would pick the one sample with a genetic defect!"

Jerry: "Hey!"

56

OldSpiteful t1_ixar4wc wrote

species beginning to extinction speedrun any% wr

22

reformlife t1_ixbr1ho wrote

No one is mentioning the fact they forced 56 inseminations of this ibex into another species of ibex forcing 56 miscarriages before they got it right? I'm all for science, but I feel like that is a bit too much failure before finally succeeding... For 7 minutes.

11

kiwilapple t1_ixbsdmp wrote

Damn, only 56? That's easy peasy baby numbers when you're talking about these kind of medical techniques, especially back then. It's only because of inefficient low success rates that we ever got to more efficient, high success rates in adjacent fields like IVF for humans.

14

Nydelok t1_ixcan2s wrote

I love how “back then” in science is only 19 years. So much development in such a small time

10

feeltheslipstream t1_ixcfuvc wrote

1 in 57 chance of bringing back an extinct animal are great odds.

Scientific experiments fail much than that a lot of the time.

9

djbraski t1_ixc6u94 wrote

They forgot to give it the mineral ibex craves.

8

MrRawes0me t1_ixcq8d6 wrote

Once they manage to get a few to adulthood, the “previously extinct meat” category will be the next big thing for the Uber rich.

6

SuperTekkers t1_ixcxawf wrote

Dodo liver pâté for starter, woolly mammoth steak for main.

2

omega_mog t1_ixbue0j wrote

I wonder in it's dying breath he looked at a scientist and game them a "You had one job, and you f@$ked it up" look

5

SpectralMagic t1_ixbcy4t wrote

I mean, natural causes ¯⁠\⁠⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠⁠/⁠¯ First species to go unextinct 3 times? Lol

4

Corgiboom2 t1_ixb22yb wrote

Plenty of them on the Rimworld

3

simian_ninja t1_ixbmfit wrote

Where am I? Who am I? What am I? Wh-owwwww.

2

BungDiggity t1_ixaw3ku wrote

So yeah we did sorta…then not so much.

1

FamiliarWater t1_ixb85lm wrote

Can we please just bring back Victoria Wood.

1

simplepleashures t1_ixch515 wrote

Ibex are important because without them we can’t play 43-Man Squamish. The Pritz is made out of ibex hide.

1

KittenPics t1_ixdejpj wrote

Nature: I thought I fucking told you!

1

Excelsioraus t1_ixl3rts wrote

I see this as a lesson from nature or God that once you have driven a species into extinction, you should not be using unnatural techniques to make it un-extinct. The same goes for clones in general. They're sickly because nature never intended them to exist.

1

ExtraExtraJosh t1_ixbfu67 wrote

The lab guy had Jurassic Park III playing on his laptop.

0

Bangzell t1_ixc4zc3 wrote

Nothing to see here, folks, just the Lord's mysterious ways hard at work. 🙏 😇

0

GoodMerlinpeen t1_ixcvpxy wrote

Ethyl methane sulfonate is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.

0

Sentsuizan t1_ixbz7g9 wrote

Wouldn't reintroducing an extinct species end up having disastrous effects as an invasive creature

−2

Brock_Way t1_ixcxaez wrote

If living specimens were alive post facto, then it wasn't extinct the first time - it was only dormant.

−2

Sonyguyus t1_ixb5luy wrote

And we honestly thought we could resurrect the dinosaurs. Can’t even get a deer that was extinct for three years to come back to life for 10 minutes.

−3

Siggi_pop t1_ixa3u6b wrote

Sometimes there is s reason animals go extinct.

−31

SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixaa67n wrote

There's always a reason. For the last thousand years that reason tends to be the same thing: us humans.

58

Actiaeon t1_ixamtpe wrote

Last thousand years, more like the last 100,000 years.

4

SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixauovq wrote

I agree. While that's true, I didn't want to give someone the ability to question some 'natural' extinctions. Human mechanisation has vastly increased the speed of extinction. For example, Aboriginal Australians possibly hunted the Diprotodon to extinction, but that type of thing is just a curious anecdote. Real extinction is directly due to hunting with guns and removing habitat at an industrial level.

But I take your point and don't disagree.

9

Actiaeon t1_ixawlpu wrote

Oh yeah, industrialization has been causing species to die off faster and faster. Also with the megafauna, it was probably a combination of hunting and climate. Now we are also causing the climate to change as well, not great for animals right now.

But I feel it is important to recognize that humans have always had the potential to cause extinction events and will require real effort on our part if we wish to change that.

4

InfernalCorg t1_ixamd7z wrote

I mean, we could just generalize to "failure to adapt and compete" and it'd be accurate for the entire history of life.

−1

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_ixannuk wrote

We're fucking up this planet and extincting species soo fast, we're most likely gonna extinct ourselves. Climate change is only one of the apocalypses we're balls deep into creating.

8

InfernalCorg t1_ixaoa0v wrote

I understand the pessimism, but we're unlikely to go extinct. Most extinction-level threats that we control involve rogue general AI.

Mass population reductions on a biblical scale, now, those are likely. It's going to be a rough few decades.

−3

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_ixapdmd wrote

It may well be plastics that get us. I dont think its a coincidence that the rise in plastic pollution coincides with a global decline in fertility rates.

But even if it doesn't, something else will finish us off. Because the problem is that we are trying to extinct ourselves in pretty much every imaginable way. Imo it won't be one thing like climate change, or rogue AI, or war, or plastics pollution etc, it will be a whole bunch of crises all going toxic at the same time.

5

InfernalCorg t1_ixaw13d wrote

> I dont think its a coincidence that the rise in plastic pollution coincides with a global decline in fertility rates.

You don't? Why does fertility rate correspond more closely to economic development than plastic use, then?

>Because the problem is that we are trying to extinct ourselves in pretty much every imaginable way.

There are quite a few more people trying to not go extinct. There's no plausible scenario (barring a gamma ray burst, asteroid, supernova, etc) where the human race goes extinct. The climate's going to suck for a century, but things will still be livable. War isn't fun, but even a thermonuclear war results in most humans living - the global south finally lucks out for once.

It's possible we go out via some sort of confluence of negative events, but it doesn't seem likely enough to dwell on it. Doomerism isn't productive.

3

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_ixaxyc9 wrote

The problem is that currently both you and science are looking at these risks individually, not studying the cumulative effects of multiple crises going critical in the same time period.

While we are fucking this planet in every way we can dream up, while consistently ignoring all warnings from the experts, with all our "efforts" to counter these problems coming up way short of the mark - through all that I think it's pretty naive to think that we will get lucky and these crises will won't converge into some apocalyptic cluterfuck.

There's also the fact that as things get much more dire, we will try stupider and more dangerous "solutions", which may very well make things considerably worse.

2

InfernalCorg t1_ixayd0k wrote

> both you and science are looking at these risks individually, not studying the cumulative effects of multiple crises going critical in the same time period.

How? What are we failing to account for? A nuclear war mid-climate change would still be catastrophic, but unless I'm missing something it wouldn't have that many synergistic effects.

> with all our "efforts" to counter these problems coming up way short of the mark

You understand that this is mostly because we don't have the political willpower to fix things, not because we don't know how, right? When things get dire, even billionaires will pick survival over money.

1

FjorgVanDerPlorg t1_ixb0tll wrote

Lol you're putting your faith in the same science that has consistently said "we got it wrong, it's actually much worse/happening much faster than expected", for the last decade - that has been the climate change song.

Systems are complex and their interactions often have wide reaching consequences.

Try maybe: a series of lethal Pandemic outbreaks caused by thawing permafrost, including a novel virus with a long incubation rate and also a very high mortality rate, at the same time as that same permafrost releasing gigatons of methane to poison the air (clathrate gun hypothesis), oceans dying along with the amazon, resultant shortages triggering a nuclear war/use of weaponized nanotech, viral/eugenic warfare, country's facing extinction deciding to fuck everyone else at the same time (US for example could carpet nuke most of the planet), on and on.

0

KingVolsung t1_ixaqek0 wrote

If human population crashes too far, we will lose the majority of the skills, technologies and knowledge we've developed.

If we've fucked up the environment too much (like we're in the midst of doing), we're gonna die off with the rest of the planet.

2

InfernalCorg t1_ixavmj7 wrote

Hardly. A particularly bad catastrophe might take is back as far as 1970s tech, but a single decent library'd be enough for us to rebuild from more-or-less scratch.

And even if we went full "atmosphere not oxygenated enough to sustain human life" we'd still have holdouts in bunkers with life support. There are eight billion of us and we're remarkably hard to eradicate.

2

KingVolsung t1_ixax8rn wrote

Those bunkers would need sufficient access to new materials for indefinite use (particularly energy production). You could not produce a full supply chain to produce the necessary tech to replace aging components in the bunkers, from inside the bunkers, within a few decades. At which point, your motors, batteries, ICs, etc would all start to die, and with them, us.

4

InfernalCorg t1_ixaxouy wrote

Or you'd operate in low-oxygen environments via rebreathers, yeah. I'm not suggesting it'd be trivial, only that even drastic changes to our environment are unlikely to wipe us out.

3

KingVolsung t1_ixayqro wrote

Rebreathers are not sustainable, they require a supply chain to be able to keep using them. The scale of the supply chains required to keep humanity alive in such a situation is far beyond what can be achieved through bunkers.

The only way we could survive such a situation is where the environment will become survivable within decades, which in evolutionary/geological timescales is a blink of an eye.

No one is building and preparing bunkers for surviving centuries to millennia, because it's not feasible.

1

SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixavnkc wrote

The phrase "failure to adapt and compete" is rather facile in this context. I mean, sure, it's true, but to what end? It's essentially placing the blame on the victim of extinction. It's the equivalent of cutting down a jungle and then when a tiger walks out you shoot it in the face and shrug "I guess he failed to adapt". Yeah, to the actions that we all took.

I'd argue it's more valuable to just say that we're clearly damaging our own environment and causing the shockingly fast extinction of multiple flora and fauna. When you get to the stage we humans have of having this level of control on our environment, it's no longer the case where other species need to adapt.

1

Siggi_pop t1_ixbpd5g wrote

People seem made about my comment... Look at at this way. What are the odds that the one and only animal you bring back has a terminal lung defect?! You don't wanna gamble a theory with bad odds! Meaning: probably the lung defect issue was a common thing for this specimen, and they had a difficulty time maintaining a steady population. This can happen in the evolutionary path. Even human tribes have been experienced high mortality rate because of a genetic decease. Don't take it personal, animals can be sick too.

1