It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where will we put re-created prehistoric creatures?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:49 AM
Since the past year I've seen many threads on the very real possibility of reviving some extinct creatures. This "Jurassic Park" technology does not seem impossible or far-off at the moment.
Some good sources of DNA would be mammoths and the Tasmanian Tiger/Wolf.
Even with those creatures, where would we put mammoths? Perhaps only a zoo.
Where would we put Neanderthals or Homo Erectus, when even native tribes complain of being in human zoos?

I've already mentioned that the Neanderthals could be given a reserve in the Ural Mountains, or the Alps.
The problem is we don't know if the behaviour of these creatures was learnt or instinctive. Wild elephants have a culture that must be learnt from a young age.
Perhaps young mammoths should first be accustomed to elephant behaviour. Then, if they start migrating according to ancient patterns we should encourage this across EU borders. Sure, a few peasants might be trampled to death, but it happens in Africa with elephants all the time.

The Neanderthals would be more difficult to teach, since nobody really knows what to teach them. In cases like that I always believe - give them to the Jesuits for 12 years. They'll kill the man and save the beast - perfect! Then they can tell or grunt what they feel, while we prod them all over.

Sabre-toothed tigers and cave bears? I'm all for it.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Ok, with mammoths I suppose Siberia and parts of Finland will suffice.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:32 AM
Helluva thread here.

Well, for starters... when we finally have free energy & peace and we are able to move people from these baren countries, we could put them there. Aside from that, once the Governments of the world reveal the planets that are habitable, we can begin to colonize on another planet...there would be more space here, and alot more space there on other worlds.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:51 AM
That reminds me of thr great American novel I read, about a futuristic amusement park where dinosaurs are brought to life through advanced cloning techniques. It was called, "Billy and the Cloneasaurus"!!

No seriously, introducing species to new environment, ask the Australians if its a good idea.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 01:57 AM
What you might think of dinosaurs as they appear in movies and such may be very different in real life. Through the evolutin cycle they have simplified their structure to fit the habitat. The earth was different back then, the reptiles could live 100's of years and grow very large, and the world flourishesd enormously with every kid of life in an ever healthy habitat. That means alot of food, and alot of different cycles...a simply much different world. To thro them back in the mix would take some time to adust, but I think it could be done.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by Cosmicdjinn

No, you can't stop science, and people's curiosity and interest is too great. They will be recreated, especially the mammoth.
Where to really put them is a secondary issue.

The Japanese have such limited space, but I bet they could put them somewhere not too shabby.

So what if they become pampered semi-zoo animals? They'll have a better life than their wild ancestors who drowned in tar-pits with sabre-toothed cats on their backs.
With birds like the Carrier Pegion, or the Great Auk, no harm in setting them free in native zones.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:00 AM
Where would we put mammoths?

Washington DC.

Keep the environmentalist there busy.

Maybe another herd in San Francisco for laughs.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:08 AM
I was merely entertaining your post, it was not a debate. If you would like some facts, ok.

They have all been recreated, but not on-planet, and most are destroyed. Alot are returned to the ocean that belong there. Mars inhabits a facility that deals with special projects like this in the lab.

The technology is not an issue, and more advanced than you think or read. They are able to tweak any species and return it to any level of evolution that they wish.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by ANNED

I wonder, is there anything we could put on Antarctica - it's so boring and desolate.
Australians, prepare for a shock, especially Tasmania!
The Tas-tiger will return, and then we can finally find out for sure if it was ever extinct via various micro-biologies and scents.
Not only that, but the Tasmanian aborigine shall return, so all you aboriginal descendants, prepare to raise your grand-grand-grand parents.
Eventually they can be given a reserve on the Flinders Island (errm).

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by Cosmicdjinn

I took my thread in quite a light-hearted way, despite the fact that I realize it addresses concrete future concerns. So I'm not too sure about the seriousness of heavy "debate" and such. (Unless people want to go totally serious.)
Don't know anything about Mars, but I've read tantilizing evidence on the hollow earth theory, and mammoths appaearing at the Poles.
There's a lot of perplexing tribal art depicting dinosaurs and such creatures, and perhaps they do still exist in the earth.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:47 AM
I hope they make some giant wicked evil beast and put it in a prison to fight the inmates until death.

That would rule.

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:50 AM
Hallow earth is a disinformation & exaggeration. There are hollow spots on earth, but the earth is not hallow. Since they found the stargates and found a way to use them, they have been building bases on mars and the moon. And ever since they discovered the DNA secret to creating a biological creature at ay stage of evo or with any augmentation, they have been creating them on-planet and off-planet in those facilities. This includes plantlife, hman life, and animal life augmentation.

I will stick with the topic, and say... would be nice if the dinosaurs could share the world with us somewhere.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Cosmicdjinn]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Cosmicdjinn]

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

I would suggest an island in a lake.
The island would contain a pride of starved sabre-tooths, and must be entered by the prisoner riding a wooly rhino rodeo style. Then:

"Ze vawter vill contain ze triumf of science - a Megaledon shark!
If ze inmate swims to the ze ozer side, he goes free.
Ladies und Gentlemens - place your bets!"

(Sorry, rubbish post, but just thinking about prisoner execution via prehistoric animals, as pondered upon above.)

[edit on 15-2-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by Cosmicdjinn

I get so confused with some theories, because sometimes they say a different space, then sometimes a different planet, at others its all a different dimension! Furthermore these concepts are inter-changeable to the believers.
Well, most of them are said to already have prehistoric animals.
So there are allegedly planes (or whatever) that look like creationist pictures of Genesis: people riding dinosaurs, such as Adam and his fishwife riding their dinosaurs to church on a Friday evening sabbath.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 03:29 AM
Introducing species that do not belong in the ecosystem = bad idea.

They did that with kudzu in the south and could never get rid of it.

If they can't get rid of kudzu, good luck controlling population of more complicated life. Jurassic Park will turn into a survival guide instead of a sci-fi movie.. >.>

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 04:21 AM
What about Iran, I mean they get blamed for everything in the world so what better place to put prehistoric creatures. That should do the trick. Failing that how about America? I mean the country is full of individuals who don't think for themselves that represent the caveman era they should go hand in hand.

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by franspeakfree

Prehistoric animals would have to pay their own way if we expect surrounding human populations to respect and protect them. (Basically the same argument for existing wildlife in Africa.)
So we'd need something that trophy hunters would like and pay lots of $$$ for.
Another option would be a potential animal(s) to domesticate, perhaps as a pack animal. We've populated the world with the about 8 species that allow for true domestication (not just exotic pets). Indian elephants can be domesticated, but they are always caught wild.
In all that the mammoth is the best bet. I'd hate to see one in must though, when they go really wild.
I suppose Greenland or any cold Russian/Asian/Canadian tundra-like steppe will do.

The giant ground sloth is another species that could be re-introduced into South America for eco-tourism, with little destruction to the landscape, and there is DNA from skin.

With the Great Auk or nothern (and original) penguin - I think we'd need secure fish-stocks first, but a little colony or two can't hurt, and eggs, meat and skin will be a pricy novelty industry. Same with the Dodo.
With the Moa in New Zealand - well, maybe, depending on DNA material.

The first generations would have to be hand-reared and trained in accordance to what we know on their original habits, society and behaviour. I think we'd be surprised how much comes naturally however.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by halfoldman]

top topics


log in