Exactly! Animal habitats are disappearing more each day - do you have any idea how much land animals like this would need so they didn't starve?
umm, meat factories?
Where the hell would we put them...lol...
That's funny VicZinc. You know I like it when I use your name...VicZinc...
From 2000: http://docuwiki.net/index.php?t...ng_the_Mammoth
So would having a Woolly mammoth basically be like having a hairy elephant? Maybe an extra wild elephant?
I think it will be cool to do, and might help zoos in cold climates, but other than that are there really any advantages to doing this?
Haha Jurassic Park, I love it! 乂^◡^乂
I so want this. Like for real. This would also partially disprove creationism
This will not also disprove creationism. It will prove that we need a creator.
LOL! I read your link, Vic, and this is the funniest part:
"Woolly mammoths could help prevent tundra permafrost from melting and releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere."
“They keep the tundra from thawing by punching through snow and allowing cold air to come in,” said Prof Church. “In the summer they knock down trees and help the grass grow.”
So cloning mammoths is going to help prevent global warming? No doubt this was an argument made in the grant proposal to insure funding.
Umm holes in the snow is going to help NOT melt the snow?
grass growing helps more than trees growing?
Won't they be producing greenhouse gas when they fart/poop?
Of course, you are right on all three counts.
I hope these people are better at gene splicing than they are at climate science.
I'm sorry, but someone had to ask/wonder it.
More animals = more green house gasses.
And more plant eaters = less plants to change the gasses into oxygen, and I think the extreme rapid destruction of the rain forrest and getting rid of all those plants is a huge reason for the increase of the gasses, but there are a ton less plants to change them into oxygen.
Um... well, maybe you could have put it a bit more delicately, e.g., flatulate/defecate instead of fart/poop.
True, but I didn't think about those words at the time, and I was attempting to get the moment/words over as soon as possible, which I thought would help with shorter words. I guess I'm not the best at being, um, delicate.
Maybe not, but I'm sure you could improve... with practice, that is.
pass wind/pinch a loaf ?
Possible true, but they're too huge to pass wind... clearly with their large size they break it
And it's gotta be more than a loaf, surely they'll take the "Green" outta Greenland.
Good for you! See, the practice is already helping you express yourself more delicately. Keep up the good work!
Oh, and it would indeed be a rather large loaf (maybe like a 6-foot hero loaf in size?), so they might have to rename that island 'Brownland' instead.
Only because you made it into a game. I'll probably be blunt if it's just me thinking my thoughts again.
Also I was thinking "Brownland", but I was worried that might of been too far again. Of course Greenland is mostly ice.
Oh, it's quite ok with me if you're blunt.
I was just giving you suggestions on how to improve the impression you might make on folks of more delicate sensibilities.
And yes, of course Greenland is mostly covered with ice, but it is thought that during the Medieval Warm Period (when it was warmer than today), there might indeed have been plants and trees growing along the coast (at least the southern coast), which inspired the Norse explorers to name it Greenland.
Oh I agree, it would probably be nice if I was more careful with my words, but naturally I'm not.
That would be interesting depending on the warmth of the medieval warm period, but I enjoy the other Norse explorers explanation of Greenland and Iceland.
Which is that they enjoyed secrets and not letting other explorers in on their better finds... and so they named Iceland in an attempt to get people to try to avoid it (because they didn't want land filled of ice), and the named Greenland because they weren't interested in it, and thought it would have other explorers waste their time traveling there to check it out.
If that explanation is true, then they must have REALLY wanted other explorers to go to eastern Canada, which they named Vinland (wine land).
In any case, it didn't work with Greenland, because the only European settlements in Greenland were made by the Norse, until it got too cold even for them.
Thanks for the history. On that site they do suggest advertising, was part of the reason.
Greenland was named by Eric the Red, who lived there for a period of time and then wanted to establish a new settlement. As is easy to imagine, people wouldn't be very eager to settle in an unknown land that is 80% ice, so Eric named it Greenland to get volunteers. It might've been a bit warmer at the time and had some forests, but nowhere near the paradise the name suggests.
But why name it wineland? I don't think that far north has much wine.
One theory is that Vinland was in New Brunswick, which has wild grapes, which the Vikings could have used to make wine.
And the Vikings loved their liquor.
So if this theory is correct, then the advertising had some truth to it.
Tink you say - Greenland is mostly covered with ice, but it is thought that during the Medieval Warm Period (when it was warmer than today), there might indeed have been plants and trees growing along the coast (at least the southern coast), which inspired the Norse explorers to name it .
I learned way back in school that greenland was the less desirable land found in that area, so they named it greenland hoping people would make plans and go there to live, instead of other nicer lands found on our side of the pond, must have been canida? Well Now I must go do some research on that.
Yes, I learned that Greenland story too, but I remember thinking at the time that they named Canada (or at least New Brunswick) "Vinland," because of the wild grapes that grew there. Now if I were an old Viking, I'd certainly rather go to a place where I could make (and drink) lots of wine. ["Green, schmeen, Eric; I'm going to where the wine is. Skoal! "]
Ah yes that is it. I wonder why they wanted to steer people in one direction rather than the other.
Humans are so silly.
But none so silly as the PC humans.
You two are so cute together....
I think Vic has gone someplace to sulk.
"En Brer Fox, he lay low."
I am content in my briar patch.
Besides, I am a Neo-Wattian and don't support any purposeful attempts to influence the environment. Let the chips fall where they will.
I think Gabriel John was a neo-Wattian too.
Or maybe he was a pre-Wattian.
You two are so cute together...
Anthony Clarke 22 Feb 2017 8:08AM
@P B Weston That's how funding works now.
Research to rectify common deformities in low birth weight children: No Funding.
Research to rectify common deformities in low birth weight children and its effects on climate change: Here's a huge wodge of cash.
A normal gestation period for an elephant is two years, so they are saying that they have already done the deed. I think somebody's mouth is running ahead of his brain.
They say mammoths went extinct 4500 years ago, but other historians say mammoths walked the Earth when the great pyramid was being built and that was allegedly 3500 years ago. It think this illustrates another example of the readiness of people to pretend they know something when they don't.
I think this is real because it has been in the works for a very long time. They got mammoth dna from a frozen well preserved mammoth. They will make a clone and put it into a modern elephant to be born. I think it will be amazing if it works, but where will it live? Hopefully africa so it can demolish anyone trying to poach or hurt the elephants in that area. But really only the arctic would be good for him with all that hair. I expect it will need to live in a zoo or research facility, whichever, it will be a lonely animal, unless it can get along with some group of modern elephants.
Come on! You know you want to see a Brontosaurus!