Sci/Tech: Would you revive dinosaurs if you could? [!OT]

[mrwiseman]

Yesterday they aired Jurassic Park 3 for the nth time, and I was thinking, if technology to bring dinosaurs was available (note: will be available anytime soon), and you had the power to choose whether to allow or disallow it, in any terms you choose, and without costing a penny, what would you do?

[Dreamer7000]

I'd say absoluetely NO. The movies shows the reasons of that well enough. They're too big, too old and too dangerous.
I'd work on reviving real people instead...

[mrwiseman]

I'd go for it, because I can, and that's enough of a reason to do anything grand. I think Science can benefit from this, and there's little to lose if done carefully. The movies indeed try to show why it could be a bad idea, but they're grossly exaggerated. For example, making a Disneyworld out of it is indeed a bad idea, and their computer system was laughable to say the least. I'd revive them in an unhabited island, guarded by international forces (international as in "not whatever USA or any other particular country wants") with permission to shoot anything unauthorized that comes near, even if it's a boat with a 10 years old kid. Of course, the creatures should be studied with helicopters and robot cameras alone, and their DNA should not be otherwise altered to produce monsters - it's real dinosaurs what we're studying.

[justwildbeat]

Why not I'd say, more exciting than a lamb or an afghan dog :/

[melfice]

mmm.. it was the first time they put Jurassic Park III in public TV, though... and about the Dinosaurs question...

Well,resurrecting them would be quite frustrating, let's not forget that the global temperature in that period of time (65~235 millions years ago) was about 25? C in the whole planet, so, if they were resurrected, they'd die quite quick because of the cold environment.

Not obstant, having them back would be interesting, at least, to see how were their skins (nobody knows that detail, as the skin colour didn't fosilize)

And the danger of these animals is like trying to run in front of a Lion, whether you get to escape alive or not, you've been in front of an animal who has claws and teeth enough to break you appart, or being under an elephant's foot, what's the diference in the results?

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ November 23, 2005 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Melfice ]</font>

[mrwiseman]

IRT Melfice: First on public TV? Then I must've seen it on cable, several times.

We could always find an island that's hot enough, even if we have to move dinosaurs to lower latitudes than they used to live in.

[phaq]

the difference would be you'd have more possibilities to get in that particular situation. you'd be a retard to ressurect a species that evolution has passed by. i mean not that i agree with all aspects of darwinism, but if time itself passed these things by, why would we want them back? the creatures we have to endure with today are a big enough pain in the ass as it is.

[mrwiseman]

Because we can, and because we could study them. Just for the sake of knowing, wouldn't you resurrect pretty much anyone who played an important role in History? Dinosaurs are pretty much anyone, only you don't have to resurrect them to learn from them (which would be impossible), you just have to clone some and see how they behave.

[phaq]

would you ressurect hitler or takamatta(sp?) for the sake of study?

[phaq]

whose to say they were either? to be 'evil'(for those that believe in the concept), in your own mind you have to know that what you're doing is wrong and do it anyway out of enjoyment.