If a species became unfit and you reintroduced it, it's still going to be unfit, and will simply die out again.
If enough time has passed for a region to have significantly evolved after the passing of this species so that it no longer accurately reflects the environment it died out in, so much time has passed that I'd consider it unlikely there is even viable DNA lying around. That's on the order of thousands of years at the least, neh?
is only extinct because of massive over-hunting by humans.
But elephants cause tremendous damage to forests and other ecosystems in Africa. Imagine having them loose in Canada, uprooting trees, wandering near cities, smashing people...
The human involvement alone argument won't hold water, I think. It needs help ^_^
In all likelyhood, if they don't get it right the first time, the "product" will die rather quickly. Genetic makeup isn't like so many legos, that can be stuck any which way and made to work.
The DOE spent $408,750 testing a "pollution-detection device" which uses "the ability of a human operator to sense changes in magnetic fields" last year.
Tax-money. On a dowsing rod. Stuff like this goes on constantly in our government. At least a Mars mission would provide for science, and more than simply "whats on mars" but long term space exposure questions could be answered, questions that potentially effect ecnomically viable items such as asteroid mining, and what have you.
Well, if this person is wealthy enough to afford a University education equivalent to that of an American (which is, when you get down to it, fairly good), he or she would hardly seem representative of a poor people anyway. ^_^
The poster states >(Not that forestfires are to be put out, as they >are quite good for the environment, but you get >the point)
I think he was simply presenting a case where weather control could be beneficial. The "useful" nature of forest fires is tangentional to the argument.
At any rate, it could still be handy if said fire was threatening inhabited areas, or what have you. Can't let those Californian towns keep going up in flames right after we dig them out of the mudslides.
Even if one of those Occam's Razor dissing theories about life on earth coming from ejecta on Mars is true, the two have developed independently for billions of years. Species on earth that are mere thousands of years seperated cannot interbreed. What is the likelyhood that something that has spent the last few eons on an utterly seperate biological course would be able to make functional use of our biological structure at all?
Water is already used as radiation shielding by places such as INEEL. Concrete is good radiation shielding, why? Because it has lots of hydrogen in it from water of hydration.
Visible light can travel through 6 feet of water, but it sure slows me down when I belly flop.. so what?
CO2 displaces Oxygen when you breathe. So yes, an extremely high concentration of CO2 would suffocate you. There needs to be a high enough concentration of Oxygen to counter that. I assume by hyperventilation you mean taking several deep breaths which is significantly different.
Deep breaths can increase your oxygen saturation, enabling you to stay submerged longer. Hyperventilation is a panic-attack like response that actually tends to decrease oxygen saturation, and would presumably force you to come up for air more quickly.
Of course, hyperventilation and breathing deeply are both irrelevant in a CO2 choked atmosphere. The CO2 would block oxygen, and thus yes, they'd be short of breath ^_^
If that were the case, they would have discovered ice 20 years ago, before sending "cheaper, (un)better, faster" probes to bounce off planets like so many multi-billion dollar spitwads...;)
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly not. You did, after all, change the focus of the argument. Rather a red herring fallicy to pin me with that last question ;)
My statements were simply that the "Man wiped them out" argument does not hold enough weight on its own, but needs something else.
You volunteered a "Something else" to give weight to the argument.
If a species became unfit and you reintroduced it, it's still going to be unfit, and will simply die out again.
If enough time has passed for a region to have significantly evolved after the passing of this species so that it no longer accurately reflects the environment it died out in, so much time has passed that I'd consider it unlikely there is even viable DNA lying around. That's on the order of thousands of years at the least, neh?
is only extinct because of massive over-hunting by humans.
But elephants cause tremendous damage to forests and other ecosystems in Africa. Imagine having them loose in Canada, uprooting trees, wandering near cities, smashing people...
The human involvement alone argument won't hold water, I think. It needs help ^_^
In all likelyhood, if they don't get it right the first time, the "product" will die rather quickly. Genetic makeup isn't like so many legos, that can be stuck any which way and made to work.
The DOE spent $408,750 testing a "pollution-detection device" which uses "the ability of a human operator to sense changes in magnetic fields" last year.
Tax-money.
On a dowsing rod.
Stuff like this goes on constantly in our government.
At least a Mars mission would provide for science, and more than simply "whats on mars" but long term space exposure questions could be answered, questions that potentially effect ecnomically viable items such as asteroid mining, and what have you.
Well, if this person is wealthy enough to afford a University education equivalent to that of an American (which is, when you get down to it, fairly good), he or she would hardly seem representative of a poor people anyway. ^_^
Better yet, let's have someone viable land on Mars, and have your crew land on Jupiter *cough*
The poster states
>(Not that forestfires are to be put out, as they >are quite good for the environment, but you get >the point)
I think he was simply presenting a case where weather control could be beneficial. The "useful" nature of forest fires is tangentional to the argument.
At any rate, it could still be handy if said fire was threatening inhabited areas, or what have you. Can't let those Californian towns keep going up in flames right after we dig them out of the mudslides.
Even if one of those Occam's Razor dissing theories about life on earth coming from ejecta on Mars is true, the two have developed independently for billions of years. Species on earth that are mere thousands of years seperated cannot interbreed. What is the likelyhood that something that has spent the last few eons on an utterly seperate biological course would be able to make functional use of our biological structure at all?
An Atmosphere, presumably, would help hold heat, and thus one could hope help keep the planet warm without manual heating.
Water is already used as radiation shielding by places such as INEEL. Concrete is good radiation shielding, why? Because it has lots of hydrogen in it from water of hydration.
Visible light can travel through 6 feet of water, but it sure slows me down when I belly flop.. so what?
CO2 displaces Oxygen when you breathe. So yes, an extremely high concentration of CO2 would suffocate you. There needs to be a high enough concentration of Oxygen to counter that. I assume by hyperventilation you mean taking several deep breaths which is significantly different.
Deep breaths can increase your oxygen saturation, enabling you to stay submerged longer. Hyperventilation is a panic-attack like response that actually tends to decrease oxygen saturation, and would presumably force you to come up for air more quickly.
Of course, hyperventilation and breathing deeply are both irrelevant in a CO2 choked atmosphere. The CO2 would block oxygen, and thus yes, they'd be short of breath ^_^
If that were the case, they would have discovered ice 20 years ago, before sending "cheaper, (un)better, faster" probes to bounce off planets like so many multi-billion dollar spitwads... ;)
>This indicates it was rotating more slowly,
>possibly even in the other direction,
Venus' rotation is indeed retrograde.
As noted, it's also quite slow, looking it up, I see that it's 243 earth days, and a year is 224, for the record ^_^