6 ms·

They can but it's risky and there are new challenges with different animals. The process isn't perfect, the animals might die: https://www.google.com/search?q=w

by dm2 11y ago

They can but it's risky and there are new challenges with different animals. The process isn't perfect, the animals might die: https://www.google.com/search?q=white+rhino+IVF https://www.google.com/search?q=white+rhino+IVF It's also not been considered too urgent since they have the sperm and eggs already, they can always put the baby in a Southern White Rhino. You must also consider the fate of that animal and the security it would require. It might be better to let them go extinct, make a big deal about it, then bring them back. Plus if they did it this way they would get much more recognition verses if they saved the species with a few still living.

artursapek 11y ago
> It's also not been considered too urgent since they have the sperm and eggs already, they can always put the baby in a Southern White Rhino. Source? Why is the Guardian article framing Sudan as the species' last chance if this is the case?
- dm2 11y ago
  The 1st link on the Google search I linked to was my source. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31001941 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31001941 The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer. Their goal is to pump out articles that make attention grabbing claims while staying truthful. The author was not a rhino expert and likely didn't do much journalism research to find the facts people need to know, but some sob story about the last of it's kind is better news (more shares, more likes, more viewers, more ad revenue).
  - chestnut-tree 11y ago
    "The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer" The Guardian writer, Jonathan Jones, is the art critic for the newspaper. Hence, the links to art history and a very descriptive interpretation of the rhino in the picture ("His head is a marvellous thing. It is a majestic rectangle of strong bone and leathery flesh, a head that expresses pure strength"). The article is part of a series called 'Framing the debate' which the site describes as follows: "A great photograph doesn't only say more than a thousand words, it can also create a hundred different reactions. In this series we take a close look at contemporary and historical photographs and videos that divide opinion" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/framing-the-debate http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/framing-the-...
- azakai 11y ago
  Because realistically it is. There are some sci-fi ideas, as others mentioned, but they are long shots.
snowpalmer 11y ago
Somewhat of a relief to read this. As much as I have zero connection with these animals I'd rather not see them go extinct.
- headShrinker 11y ago
  Agreed. I think most of us can relate to your sentiment. The world perspective might be the animals, trees, and water are connected to us. When these animals die, it's the canary in the coal mine. Our time is coming. You figure when everything is dying around us it's for a reason. One species over there is a singularity, two species is a coincidence, 25% of all living things is indication that something is terribly wrong and it's only going to get worse.
  - ProAm 11y ago
    Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and never return, but it's is still sad. [1] http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html
    - rcthompson 11y ago
      But it is unnatural for species to go extinct because humans shot them all.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.
        bduerst 11y ago
        Really it depends on the context and what humans can control. Could we stop a volcanic eruption? Probably not. A meteor strike? Maybe. Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.

by dm2 11y ago

artursapek 11y ago

> It's also not been considered too urgent since they have the sperm and eggs already, they can always put the baby in a Southern White Rhino. Source? Why is the Guardian article framing Sudan as the species' last chance if this is the case?

dm2 11y ago
The 1st link on the Google search I linked to was my source. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31001941 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31001941 The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer. Their goal is to pump out articles that make attention grabbing claims while staying truthful. The author was not a rhino expert and likely didn't do much journalism research to find the facts people need to know, but some sob story about the last of it's kind is better news (more shares, more likes, more viewers, more ad revenue).
- chestnut-tree 11y ago
  "The Guardian article is written by someone who is most likely a freelance writer" The Guardian writer, Jonathan Jones, is the art critic for the newspaper. Hence, the links to art history and a very descriptive interpretation of the rhino in the picture ("His head is a marvellous thing. It is a majestic rectangle of strong bone and leathery flesh, a head that expresses pure strength"). The article is part of a series called 'Framing the debate' which the site describes as follows: "A great photograph doesn't only say more than a thousand words, it can also create a hundred different reactions. In this series we take a close look at contemporary and historical photographs and videos that divide opinion" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/framing-the-debate http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/framing-the-...
azakai 11y ago
Because realistically it is. There are some sci-fi ideas, as others mentioned, but they are long shots.

snowpalmer 11y ago

Somewhat of a relief to read this. As much as I have zero connection with these animals I'd rather not see them go extinct.

headShrinker 11y ago
Agreed. I think most of us can relate to your sentiment. The world perspective might be the animals, trees, and water are connected to us. When these animals die, it's the canary in the coal mine. Our time is coming. You figure when everything is dying around us it's for a reason. One species over there is a singularity, two species is a coincidence, 25% of all living things is indication that something is terribly wrong and it's only going to get worse.
- ProAm 11y ago
  Sort of, until you realize that 99% of all creatures that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. [1] It's not unnatural for animals to leave the planet and never return, but it's is still sad. [1] http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html
  - rcthompson 11y ago
    But it is unnatural for species to go extinct because humans shot them all.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Its more 'natural' if a volcano erupts and kills them all? Or a flood? Or an asteroid? Its not 'normal', I admit that. Extinction by definition can't be a normal event. But natural? I guess if everything man-made is defined as 'unnatural' then sure.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        Really it depends on the context and what humans can control. Could we stop a volcanic eruption? Probably not. A meteor strike? Maybe. Could we stop the poaching of near extinct species for some unproven alternative medicine? Hopefully.