DVDizzy Forum

I couldn't see any posts about prehistoric creatures, so I made one myself.

Jurassic Park and similar concepts reflects the dream many have about brining back extinct creatures. If we had a time machine, so it was possible to go back in time and bring them all here, what would make sense to bring back?

Fungi? The one I can think of is Prototaxites, which could grow the several meters in height.

If we are talking about plants, who wouldn't like some early and primitive seed ferns, or some shrubs consisting of the first true vacular plants. Or Archaeopteris, the first trees that looked like modern trees, but produced with spores (the oldest fossils being 385 million years old).

But most people would prefer interesting animals. There is only one problem with that; they may not fit into the modern day ecosystem.

A T-Rex or giant long necked sauropods would never adapt to the modern world. For them to thrive, one would also have to re-introduce the old ecosystem they lived in, and create gigantic reservations for them. Which would mean trouble for many present species, both plants and animals.

I think zoos are out of the question. Even today animals should not have to spend their whole life in cages. The only way for them to live in our time, would be if their mental and physical needs could be fulfilled, which is not possible in zoos. Which also requires travelling for most of us.

What many really want, it to learn about prehistoric animals. So instead of bringing them here, one could go back in time and film them, take DNA-samples, and bring the information back here.

Also, how many are seeing the animals alive in the world today? If someone brought back ichtyosaurs, and they were successfully introduced in the ocean, who whould see them? How many are able to see whales, dolphins, tigers, bears and so on in the wild? Not to mention even smaller animals.

Bringing back extinct animals can in that case be divided into four categories:

1. Those who went extinct so recently, like glyptodonts and Stellar's sea cow, that they still fit in our modern ecosystem.

2. Extinct animals that lived a very long time ago, before our own ecosystem evolved, but which can surive in them anyway (without doing harm, like the rabbits in Australia). Still, what purpose would it be if we couldn't see them, or if they looked like modern day salamanders and lizards? The real reason for most people is to see them. If not, one could just as well be satisfied with footage from time travellers. The only example I can think of is perhaps certain small species of pterosaurs, which could adapt without taking over any existing niches.

3. A type of modern day petting zoos. Small, harmless and modest sized herbivores that humans can walk amongst. Like the giant tortoises or marine iguanas on Galapagos today. They probably wouldn't need that much space. A ranch sized area perhaps. Tiny dinosaus, rhynchosaurs, lotosaurs, dicynodonts, diadectes, pareiasaur and others.

4. Aquariums. If it was possible to make aquariums that could fulfill the basic needs of aquatic animals, then why not? Small prehistoric amphibians, the first primtive tetrapods, jawless fishes, radiodonta, ammonites, lobopods and other creatures.

Would we be bringing back animals/plants/organisms for humans' ciriousity's sake, or science? Would it be in the best interest of the animals/plants/organisms? Would we bring them back because they have something special to contribute (like a plant that can help air quality), or just because it'd be cool to see a live woolly mammoth, for example?

There are already a limited # of resources for animals/plants/organisms living today in many cases (look at coral reefs as one example), and there seem to be more natural disasters in recent times. Would it be fair to reintroduce animals/plants/organisms, just for wildfires/hurricanes/California falling into the ocean to kill them off?

I've always loved dinosaurs, but I think the Jurassic Park /World films give us many reasons not to bring them back. . And your point about where they would live is very important. It'd be very irresponsible to reintroduce T-Rexs, for example, just for animals/people to die from attacks (and then unless the T-Rexs eat science-made animal replacement food, you know, lab-grown meat that's not a dead animal, is it responsible of us to kill the prey animals? Sure, maybe they'd be another animal's, or even human's, meal, but we'd be giving them an earlier death sentence... When T-Rex and humans don't kill it (like a cow/pig/chicken), the Circle of Life plays a part in the animal dying, but a T-Tex has got to eat, too, and that doesn't factor into the current Circle of Life).

Now, for going back in time: Again, is that mostly for science/human curiousity/for the animals'/plants'/organisms' sake? Yes, it'd be totally cool for scientists to actually be able to study real dinosaurs, for example, but what if the "time machine" broke and we've stranded our researchers in an environment that isn't maybe suited for human life, depending on what era we send them back to. I think if this ever were a possibility, maybe NASA/Roscosmos/other countries' space programs should assist, since surely they have dealt with similar concerns with sending astronauts into space. And how many astronauts have died? Surely some scientists would risk death to be a part of history and to experience the past, but there would be ethical considerations for sure.

Your next point: zoos: Would it be in the best interest of an animal we brought back to just keep them locked up vs free roaming (and then comes into your point of "would we even see them)? (Would we bring back just the DNA and make a clone? Would that be a whole other set of ethical concerns? We'd have to ensure that the environment is one that the animal/plant/organism could survive in, whether or not we bring back a live animal/plant/organism or "just" the DNA [like you said, would they fit into the modern ecosystem?]).

Personally, I think your Category 1, bringing back recently-extinct animals/plants/organisms makes the most sense. As you said, they'd fit in (going back to the Australian bunnies; I was not familiar with that case, but I just read a little (if this is what you were talking about)...In 1859, European rabbits were brought to Australia to be hunted and they causes destruction, but were a source of food when times were tough. So good that people had food to eat, not good for the bunnies, but lots more bad came out of this. And these weren't back-in-time/brought back to life bunnies; they were just transported.

Maybe we should focus on preserving current endangered species and creating lab-grown meat and not make more risk and death than there is?! Poor bunnies.

Super interesting idea for a topic!!!

Everything related to science could have been done without making zoos and re-introduce them to our world. So the main reason would have been for humans to have something to look at and experience in real life. And since I think these old creatures deserve a little more respect than being attractions at zoos, or the prize for trophy hunters, and they would be out of sight for most people if it was possible for them to live on our present day planet, that would exclude most of them. Both the larger and smaller ones.

The other reason is as mentioned to bring back relatively recently extinct species and let them find their old niche in the ecosystems again.

Scientists are still finding plant species in the rainforests today that can be used in modern medicine, so perhaps some old prehistoric and extinct plants also have qualities worth exploring.

I don't think plants would be a problem as long as they didn't spread and turned into weeds. But of course, potential animal species would have to find theirn won place in our nature without facing the risk of another extiction.

If a time machine was possible, I assume they would make more than one, which could assist any travellers if some problems showed up. And if they were able to avoid being attacked by larger animals, I'm convinced humans would be able to survive most eras as long as there was enough oxygen in the air.

Yes, rabbits is just one example of what can happen when animals (and plants) from one place are let loose somewhere else in the world.

With lab-grown meat, I guess you mean in-vitro meat? The progress is slow, but they have come further today than some years ago. If they succeed and it becomes cheap enough, you could one day order a gorilla burger at Burger King.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:And since I think these old creatures deserve a little more respect than being attractions at zoos, or the prize for trophy hunters, and they would be out of sight for most people if it was possible for them to live on our present day planet, that would exclude most of them.

Do you mean that most extinct animals would be excluded from being able to live on our present-day planet?

People would need to try and make sure that there aren't "new" diseases that could kill the animals/plants/organisms...I'm still concerned about either the extinct animals or the existing animals becoming prey...

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:If a time machine was possible, I assume they would make more than one, which could assist any travelers if some problems showed up.

To play devil's advocate, there are multiple spaceships currently, but sometimes one still blows up, killing the astronauts, regardless of other ships existing...but if one time machine just malfunctioned, then you are right- hopefully another could be sent to them (in a timely manner before they are eaten by dinosaurs or something...).

I hadn't heard the phrase "in-vitro meat" before, but looking it up, yes, that's the same thing as the "lab-grown meat." There's still a long way to go, obviously, but eventually they could mass-market it and it'd be a lot more affordable.

For them to be introduced to the wild, they would have to both be able to survive, not become a repetition of the rabbits in Australia, and in general not compete with already existing species. But again, now we're talking about creatures that lived many millions years ago, not recently extinct ones that could still find their old niche if reintroduced.
And they shouldn't be so large that they could represent any danger. But as mentioned, if the main reason of some humans to have some cool animals they can see in the real world, it excludes smaller animals (how often do you see a shrew for instance?), and animals that lived in the open ocean or deep forests and so on. Most humans live in urban areas these days, and many also live in places where the winter is cold with a lot of snow.
Ostriches are for instance rather common in Africa, but how many of us live near the African savannah? A lot of animals are available for us as film and pictures, but seeing them in the wild in their own environment is rare. So if the main reason is for humans to have facinating beings on our planets, we wouldn't see them anyway. Which is why I said that smaller pterosaurs that had a similar lifestyle like crows or seagulls could adapt and become a visible part of our everyday life. Then again, we would end up taking them for granted in the end.

And yes, everything that was brought back would have to go through tests to make sure no dangerous virus or microbes were introduced as well.

Time machines are entirely fictional devices and technologies, but my guess is that they would be very different from space shuttles. If humans ever go to Mars, you can't just send help if problems occurs. But time travel is something else, because the essense of time is no longer the main challenge. And sending two at once shouldn't be a problem. It all depends on how much energy is required.

The reason for the topic was because I was thinking about Jurassic Park the other day, and thought it would be hard to justify to bring back all those animals if it had been real. And the selection was rather restricted; some dinosaurs and an aquatic species. To get real diversity one would need more than just blood from a mosquito in amber, so a Time Machine would make more sense.