3 ms·
Seems sadistic to bring back a species to a world in which it can't survive in the wild. It's existence will be nothing more than a plaything for humans to look
by _Algernon_ 4y ago
Seems sadistic to bring back a species to a world in which it can't survive in the wild. It's existence will be nothing more than a plaything for humans to look and gawk at.
- themitigating 4y agoIt died due to invasive animals brought by humans
- _Algernon_ 4y agoThat changes nothing about my statement
- once_inc 4y agoIf we can recreate the bird, we can recreate the environment for the bird too.
- BizarreByte 4y agoWe have barely been able to do that for animals which are still living, but lost their natural environment. Assuming we can recreate a maintain an accurate environment to ensure the bird’s long term success is way, way too optimistic.
- mathieuh 4y agoThey have an active mammal extermination programme in NZ trying to deal with the threat to the native birds. https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2016/predator-free-nz-2050-to-be-a-massive-team-effort/ https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2016/predator-fr...
- rippercushions 4y agoThe time-honored solution for this is to exterminate invasive species on a small nearby island, and make that a reserve. New Zealand has employed extensively with quite a bit of success, and there are numerous small, uninhabited islands in Mauritius that seem like plausible options.
- makeitdouble 4y agoWe can, but that assumes continued political will to do so. That's something we're definitely not good at.
- themitigating 4y agoI'm sorry. I took your statement as "if the bird couldn't survive on its own..."
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoHow is creating Dodo birds and putting them in a zoo inherently different than having other animals in a zoo?
- makeitdouble 4y agoHaving regular animals in zoos is also controversial. The question is different when it can be summed up as "to be or not to be", but I think it's still an ethical bag of hurts.
- psiops 4y agoGood question! I think it is related to knowing that zoo animals have wild counterparts and the ones in zoos are just (unlucky) specimens to be gawked at. You convince yourself this somehow helps the conservation of the wild ones through education etc. That's different from unextincting a species but there's no place for them anywhere in the wild world.
- JohnFen 4y agoIt's not. Zoos are depressing as hell.
- mschuster91 4y agoActually, bringing back extinct or near-extinct animals has a lot of side benefits to ecosystems as a whole - just look at the successes of wolf reintroduction programs. Wolves keep reindeer and similar animals in check, which is beneficial for plant life and subsequently species that depend on greenery [1]. But for that, you need quality breeding stock in zoos in the first place. [1] https://defenders.org/blog/2020/03/we-were-wrong-about-wolves-heres-why https://defenders.org/blog/2020/03/we-were-wrong-about-wolve...
- m000 4y agoI find it noble. It would only be sadistic if we bring them back just to see dodo meat farms in a couple of decades.
- Tepix 4y agoAre they tasty?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- helloworld11 4y agoApparently, based on contemporary accounts, opinion was varied, but they were meaty and easy to catch. A bit of selective breeding would probably make them ideal poultry farm animals.