Well John, it seems to me that society has figured this out, but that you refuse to recognize that fact because it's opinion differs from yours. Also, most would say that many of the images available on the net, things such as beastiality, S&M, etc., are inappropriate at any age. It should be illegal to distribute pictures of sexual activities that are illegal. Simple.
Hey now, a little bondage can be fun. Liberating, even (how's that for an interesting dichotomy?).
How can you say that someone shouldn't look at S&M photos? Simply looking causes no harm. And if Joe and his girlfriend want to bust out the handcuffs and get a little rough - well, how does that hurt little Billy?
I think that porn actually HELPS some people address sexual desires. And I don't just mean surfing the web for pr0n and then "going on a date with Rosy".
Repression doesn't work well with anger - and I don't think it works well with sexuality either. We all know the pressure cooker analogy...
I'd argue that the traditional American view of sexuality is flawed. No discussion, and very little acknowledgement, of something central to who and what we are. We may have "figured it out", but only if you can figure something out without discussion of it.
Finally, if people can't have the freedom to transmit ideas privately, I suspect that freedom to transmit ideas publicly is already - in practice - lost. It is a small step indeed from ideas/imagery that are deemed "against common decency" to ideas/imagery that are deemed "against the welfare of the state". Outlaw porn and, eventually, anything deemed "seditious" will follow.
Cheers, Brian
Re:There is a predator
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
Bingo. There is your regulating feedback mechanism.
Because it hasn't slowed yet doesn't mean it won't eventually slow down. In fact, I think that things have slowed some. Witness how difficult it is to get venture capital for new web companies now.
Nice post! Natural selection is a biological theory. It was never intended to explain social phenomena because there is no comparable feedback mechanism to DNA.
Wrong. EVERYTHING exists in some sort of feedback system, else it would be completely unstable.
In the case of "information", there are two possibilities - a) the system has no feedback, and is unstable (ie, constantly growing), or b) it has a feedback mechanism that has yet to be identified, and will (eventually) stabilize itself. I think we are already beginning to see that with information (the difficulty in getting web venture capital nowadays).
Feedback systems exist outside of biology. Ask any good engineer.
Cheers,
Brian
Re:Genomes, Gattaca, and Brave New World
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Everyone is trained to enjoy their job, and thus everyone is happy to do the job the were created to do. IIRC, the entire reason the society became this way was that people were willing to give up certain rights in order to be safe. (Was this from a massive war, I can't remember)
Spot on. Just finished re-reading the book last night, and overpopulation combined with the "7 Year War" led to the "Brave New World".
I think it's interesting to note the fact that Christianity has been replaced by Fordianism (Henry Ford & the assembly line), and consumerism is the name of the game. Coupled with the way things are going here at the end of the 90's, Huxley was exactly right.
Big Brother isn't going to be government. It's going to be The Limited, Nike, Starbucks, and McDonalds. We are already being conditioned to be a consumer society - we eagerly gobble up the drivel advertisers throw at us and define our success on the amount of cool junk we own. We are, paraphrasing Tyler Durden, our "f*ck*ng khakis".
Genetic engineering in Huxley's vision would simply allow the big meta-nats to train us into even BETTER consumers, with no annoying anti-WTO riots. Nice, huh?
Not that I'm anti-HGP, or anti-technology. We just need to be aware of what is developing around us. I believe it was Franklin who said: "He who is willing to trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Cheers, Brian
Re:"My God has a bigger d**k than your God!"
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
Buddhists do not believe in "something above themselves", at least not in the Judeo-Christian sense. If memory serves (and I'm sure I'll be called on this if I'm wrong), there is no "absolute moral framework". Just a respect for all things living. That seems to allow alot of wriggle room.
Besides, who says that an absolute moral framework (Ten Commandments) are necessary to behaving in a socially acceptable manner? There are many atheist moral/ethical philosophies out there, such as Secular Humanism, which do have a "moral framework". Not to mention Relatavism, which does NOT have a moral framework - everything is judged independently.
Re:Religion is the cause of bloodshed and cruelty?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
1) Hitler was Catholic.
2) Communism is not evil.
I guess this validates Hitler, eh? After all, he was a religious man... And what about that Inquisition thing? Hmmm...
Risking negative Karma, Brian
Re:A good argument for moderating articles, this i
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
2)slams organized religion as being responsible for more bloodshed and genocide than any other force in history. (Like, Communism was a bad dream or something?)
Umm.... I challenge you to find ANY examples of communist bloodshed/genocide that measure up to the Crusades, jihad, Inquisition, etc. I mean, communism has only been around for the last 3/4 of a century!!! Compare that to your 2000 years of dogmatic bigotry. Any "evils" of communism were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to Western anti-communism (McCarthy) propaganda.
Organized religion has a long history of foolish dogma. I doubt highly that you could realistically call that "two millenia worth of thought and reflection on life and morality" - the basic tenets haven't changed AT ALL. Given the trouble various scientists have had with organized religion in the past (Gallileo) - well, it doesn't really support your statement.
BTW, loved the ad hominem you pulled on Katz for his ad hominem towards religion.
Of course, there tends to be a very Western spin on/. discussions. Nobody has brought up Shinto, Buddhism, or even Muslim viewpoints. At least, I didn't see them.
Unfortunately (since they are widely respected and heeded) religious leaders are often wide of the mark, especially on stuff like this. Society is moving forward at a rate religion cannot reconcile. Not a good thing for an institution that is - by definition - already lagging behind.
While Jon didn't really say anything new here, the use of Gattaca and Frankenstein serve only to sensationalize. Creating (maybe) a single-celled organism is a far stretch from a genetengineered society. I can see no harm in proceding - yet.
Sure, there are various ways to abuse any technology, (using the internet to find how to make bombs, creating ubermenschen with the HGP, killing tens of thousands with an atomic bomb, etc). But each of those technologies have positive uses as well. The best use of the HGP I can forsee is the reduction (elimination?) of genetic diseases. After all (and this is a rather cold view), cancer, Downs Syndrome, muscular dystrophy, etc are natural selection methods that we are affecting by medicine and societal care already. Eliminating them entirely wouldn't be much different.
Yeah, genetic manipulation might not be positive social progress. Probably isn't. But that doesn't (IMHO) mean we should make it illegal, or even abandon something like the HGP. It's difficult at best to forsee the effects of the HGP - Gattica and Beyond This Horizon aside - we can merely speculate.
I would prefer to wait until some early results are in before we assume the worst. I'd like to think that a genetengineered oligarchy wouldn't arise. Of course, given enough rope, humanity has a history of attempting to hang itself.
BTW, went to my local B&N (evil corporate entity alert!) to grab Dale, and it wasn't in. Got it on order, should be here in a few days.
Thanks, I made a note of the book reference, and will (hopefully) get around to reading it this break.
Found that book: The Future and it's Enemies, by Virginia Postrel (The Free Press, 1998). Fabulous book on progress, and attacks statists on the left and the right as being foolish in their attempts to dictate the future.
The fact is, it's impossible to completely control your environment, just as it's impossible to completely control the future. You are correct in stating that nostalgia for the atomic family of the 50's is rooted in control of the masses. It's far easier to control something you can understand, as opposed to something you don't.
That brings us back to the HGP. People oppose it because it challenges the status quo. It's progress. It has the potential for great applications, as well as harmful ones. The reasons posted (anti-God, Gattaca-like future society, etc) all say the same thing, even if the posters don't realize it: "I'm afraid of that which I don't understand."
I say let rip. All progress (social, economic, political, scientific, etc) arises from someone willing to take the risks involved. Somebody had to be the first to be immunized, right?
As others have mentioned, we haven't removed ourselves from the rules of nature.
We have, however, "changed" those rules. I had this drunken epipheny once that revealed to me the truth: whatever we do to influence natural selection is, by definition, natural.
How so? Simple. We are products of nature. Our behaviors and actions - no matter how twisted - are also products of nature. We are shaping our own evolution, and have been doing so ever since we figured out how to use a club. Every invention, every technological development, does right back into the self-regulating feedback system.
If we genetically engineer ourselves into an adaptability corner, perhaps we weren't as fit a species as we thought. Thus, when we thought we were "cheating" natural selection, nature has the last laugh as some unknown strain of the common cold manages to wipe us out in 6 days.
Or, if we manage to blow ourselves up with some advanced nuclear weapons, well -- we deserved it, didn't we?
Not that this means we should shun technology and technological development. Why change what has worked for the last x million years?
"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" It is, after all, a Brave New World, eh?;)
Unfortunately, I'm in a public lab, so I don't have the book with me (and thus can't remember it's friggin' name!), but there is an excellent book out about progress vs stasis (dynanism, I think, is what the author called progress/change). I'll post the title when I get home.
What is really scary is not when politicians pine away for the nuclear family of the 50's (AFA, for example), but when the unwashed masses agree. [shudder] That is the first step towards a stagnant society.
HGP is fascinating, but Katz is right:: as with any new technologies, this one has the ability to be abused.
The folks in the streets in Seattle understand that.
Sadly, I don't think they do.
It seems to me that people are missing the forest for the trees, the forest being consumerism, the trees being protecting the environment, or protecting American jobs from export, or protecting Trinidadian jobs (hmm, conflict of interest there? Which one do you want?).
It's the same way here at Ohio State. All these people protesting the WTO are going about it all wrong. They should be blowing up credit card companies:)
These protests are lacking any direction and focus. Katz nailed it on the head: the general feeling is anti-consumerism, and as soon as protesters realize that, they will be far more effective.
This has been a long time coming. Dr. Evil headquartered in Starbucks, Fight Club, etc etc. Here in Columbus there has been MASSSIVE lashback against big corporations displacing local businesses in the University District. And we love to riot here in Ohio! I can't wait until it all clicks together.:)
I'm in a Software Engineering sequence right now at Ohio State... and they hammer home again and again that the language is just the tool. They are teaching concepts of component based OO programming, which is really what you want to learn.
You can pick up multiple other languages in ONE credit hour classes here. Languages are easy - concepts are hard.
People seem to have a difficult time understanding that they are NOT supposed to be concentrating on the language, but the methods.
A clean product - maybe not. But cleaner is a very good idea, because the products are all the public have to judge the people behind the industry by.
What if the software (or that buggy OS) is used in a life-critical system? Does the programmer have a responsibility to ensure (to the best of his ability) a bug-free system? I would think so! Would civil engineers be allowed to build buggy bridges, or doctors perform buggy surgury?
Surface mobility would seem to be a big issue in any long-term visit - and on Mars you don't need (as large and bulky) deep-sea diving suits. Plus, if we can figure out a way to release some of the CO2 in the ice caps & soil... rebreathers would be necessary, but no pressurized environment suits. Plus little atmosphere still = big help in radiation shielding. All plusses compared to the Moon.
Travel time is the only real issue concerning distance to Mars as opposed to the Moon. The delta-V difference is negligible (a Saturn V would've been big enough).
There is much more interesting (IMHO) science to be had on Mars. Water? Maybe. Microbal life (current or past)? Maybe. Plus I think it's a more viable option for long-term inhabitance.
If I had the pesos, I'd be headed to the Red Planet, myself.
Technically, there's nothing keeping anybody from doing eco-terrorism (re: blowing up a air-processing facility) here on earth... there is just a good system in place to punish them after the fact.
Let's face it, and frontier land is, well, frontier land! Wyatt Earp, and all that. Nobody said it'd be easy, and you'd be a fool to think so.
And, while there isn't a heavy lift vehicle in place, we could cobble something together quite easily out of SRB's and a few Shuttle main engines that would have the necessary juice.
However, this is pretty out there. A big rock with no usable atmosphere seems pretty useless for anything except science and perhaps mining industry. Mars, on the other hand...:)
Technology isn't evil. It's risky when it isn't mature.
Look at the early stages of nuclear power. The gov't was blowin' up sh*t out west with people a few miles away watching - and receiving massive doses of radiation. Yeah, that sucked for those people, but what we learned about atomic power was great! Think of all the positive applications of nuclear power - naval power plants, spacecraft, traditional ground-based power, medical treatments, etc etc.
If nobody is willing to take on the possible risks of testing out new technologies, no advancement is possible - and potential long term benefits of the mature technology will not be achieved.
Besides, I'm positive that there are countless unforseen uses for this technology down the line - the sky is the limit, so to speak.
Well - yeah, I guess you could claim it's natural. Good or not is debatable - but it always is, since what could be classified as good is relativistic (thus are morals and ethics).
If we are capable of destroying ourselves (and we now are), and we do, did we deserve it? I think you could conclude (if conclusions are possible from beyond the grave) that we were incapable of handling our environment as well as we thought, and - frankly - natural selection rightly prevails again.
Would it then be the responsibility of the apes that then ruled the world to return us to non-extinct status when they possesed the technology to do so?:)
Who is able to say what is/is-not a "horrible, stupid, short-sighted mistake with horrible repurcussions"? There is no real absolute ethic or moral standard to apply here (is there ever?). One man's geese is another man's gander, etc etc. The fact is that we are a part of nature. These animals were driven to extinction simply because they were competing with the local humans for resources (livestock), and the humans were simply more able. Survival of the fittest. Mean? Yup. The past is the past. Attempting to right past wrongs sets a precipitous precedent... When do we return Neanderthals (or one of the other thousands upon thousands of extinct species) to the face of the planet? We surely aided their extinction by out-competing them for resources! We should persue this line of research - but not because we can right past wrongs - because we can, and will learn much from the efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now, a little bondage can be fun. Liberating, even (how's that for an interesting dichotomy?).
How can you say that someone shouldn't look at S&M photos? Simply looking causes no harm. And if Joe and his girlfriend want to bust out the handcuffs and get a little rough - well, how does that hurt little Billy?
I think that porn actually HELPS some people address sexual desires. And I don't just mean surfing the web for pr0n and then "going on a date with Rosy".
Repression doesn't work well with anger - and I don't think it works well with sexuality either. We all know the pressure cooker analogy...
I'd argue that the traditional American view of sexuality is flawed. No discussion, and very little acknowledgement, of something central to who and what we are. We may have "figured it out", but only if you can figure something out without discussion of it.
Finally, if people can't have the freedom to transmit ideas privately, I suspect that freedom to transmit ideas publicly is already - in practice - lost. It is a small step indeed from ideas/imagery that are deemed "against common decency" to ideas/imagery that are deemed "against the welfare of the state". Outlaw porn and, eventually, anything deemed "seditious" will follow.
Cheers,
Brian
Because it hasn't slowed yet doesn't mean it won't eventually slow down. In fact, I think that things have slowed some. Witness how difficult it is to get venture capital for new web companies now.
Cheers,
Brian
Wrong. EVERYTHING exists in some sort of feedback system, else it would be completely unstable.
In the case of "information", there are two possibilities - a) the system has no feedback, and is unstable (ie, constantly growing), or b) it has a feedback mechanism that has yet to be identified, and will (eventually) stabilize itself. I think we are already beginning to see that with information (the difficulty in getting web venture capital nowadays).
Feedback systems exist outside of biology. Ask any good engineer.
Cheers,
Brian
Spot on. Just finished re-reading the book last night, and overpopulation combined with the "7 Year War" led to the "Brave New World".
I think it's interesting to note the fact that Christianity has been replaced by Fordianism (Henry Ford & the assembly line), and consumerism is the name of the game. Coupled with the way things are going here at the end of the 90's, Huxley was exactly right.
Big Brother isn't going to be government. It's going to be The Limited, Nike, Starbucks, and McDonalds. We are already being conditioned to be a consumer society - we eagerly gobble up the drivel advertisers throw at us and define our success on the amount of cool junk we own. We are, paraphrasing Tyler Durden, our "f*ck*ng khakis".
Genetic engineering in Huxley's vision would simply allow the big meta-nats to train us into even BETTER consumers, with no annoying anti-WTO riots. Nice, huh?
Not that I'm anti-HGP, or anti-technology. We just need to be aware of what is developing around us. I believe it was Franklin who said: "He who is willing to trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Cheers,
Brian
Besides, who says that an absolute moral framework (Ten Commandments) are necessary to behaving in a socially acceptable manner? There are many atheist moral/ethical philosophies out there, such as Secular Humanism, which do have a "moral framework". Not to mention Relatavism, which does NOT have a moral framework - everything is judged independently.
Check this page on The Secular Web for more information on atheism and morality.
(!God) != immorality.
Cheers,
Brian
2) Communism is not evil.
I guess this validates Hitler, eh? After all, he was a religious man... And what about that Inquisition thing? Hmmm...
Risking negative Karma,
Brian
2)slams organized religion as being responsible for more bloodshed and genocide than any other force in history. (Like, Communism was a bad dream or something?)
Umm.... I challenge you to find ANY examples of communist bloodshed/genocide that measure up to the Crusades, jihad, Inquisition, etc. I mean, communism has only been around for the last 3/4 of a century!!! Compare that to your 2000 years of dogmatic bigotry. Any "evils" of communism were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to Western anti-communism (McCarthy) propaganda.
Organized religion has a long history of foolish dogma. I doubt highly that you could realistically call that "two millenia worth of thought and reflection on life and morality" - the basic tenets haven't changed AT ALL. Given the trouble various scientists have had with organized religion in the past (Gallileo) - well, it doesn't really support your statement.
BTW, loved the ad hominem you pulled on Katz for his ad hominem towards religion.
Of course, there tends to be a very Western spin on /. discussions. Nobody has brought up Shinto, Buddhism, or even Muslim viewpoints. At least, I didn't see them.
Unfortunately (since they are widely respected and heeded) religious leaders are often wide of the mark, especially on stuff like this. Society is moving forward at a rate religion cannot reconcile. Not a good thing for an institution that is - by definition - already lagging behind.
While Jon didn't really say anything new here, the use of Gattaca and Frankenstein serve only to sensationalize. Creating (maybe) a single-celled organism is a far stretch from a genetengineered society. I can see no harm in proceding - yet.
Cheers,
Brian
Yeah, genetic manipulation might not be positive social progress. Probably isn't. But that doesn't (IMHO) mean we should make it illegal, or even abandon something like the HGP. It's difficult at best to forsee the effects of the HGP - Gattica and Beyond This Horizon aside - we can merely speculate.
I would prefer to wait until some early results are in before we assume the worst. I'd like to think that a genetengineered oligarchy wouldn't arise. Of course, given enough rope, humanity has a history of attempting to hang itself.
BTW, went to my local B&N (evil corporate entity alert!) to grab Dale, and it wasn't in. Got it on order, should be here in a few days.
Off to re-read Brave New World. :)
Cheers,
Brian
Found that book: The Future and it's Enemies, by Virginia Postrel (The Free Press, 1998). Fabulous book on progress, and attacks statists on the left and the right as being foolish in their attempts to dictate the future.
The fact is, it's impossible to completely control your environment, just as it's impossible to completely control the future. You are correct in stating that nostalgia for the atomic family of the 50's is rooted in control of the masses. It's far easier to control something you can understand, as opposed to something you don't.
That brings us back to the HGP. People oppose it because it challenges the status quo. It's progress. It has the potential for great applications, as well as harmful ones. The reasons posted (anti-God, Gattaca-like future society, etc) all say the same thing, even if the posters don't realize it: "I'm afraid of that which I don't understand."
I say let rip. All progress (social, economic, political, scientific, etc) arises from someone willing to take the risks involved. Somebody had to be the first to be immunized, right?
Cheers,
Brian
We have, however, "changed" those rules. I had this drunken epipheny once that revealed to me the truth: whatever we do to influence natural selection is, by definition, natural.
How so? Simple. We are products of nature. Our behaviors and actions - no matter how twisted - are also products of nature. We are shaping our own evolution, and have been doing so ever since we figured out how to use a club. Every invention, every technological development, does right back into the self-regulating feedback system.
If we genetically engineer ourselves into an adaptability corner, perhaps we weren't as fit a species as we thought. Thus, when we thought we were "cheating" natural selection, nature has the last laugh as some unknown strain of the common cold manages to wipe us out in 6 days.
Or, if we manage to blow ourselves up with some advanced nuclear weapons, well -- we deserved it, didn't we?
Not that this means we should shun technology and technological development. Why change what has worked for the last x million years?
"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" It is, after all, a Brave New World, eh? ;)
Cheers,
Brian
Unfortunately, I'm in a public lab, so I don't have the book with me (and thus can't remember it's friggin' name!), but there is an excellent book out about progress vs stasis (dynanism, I think, is what the author called progress/change). I'll post the title when I get home.
What is really scary is not when politicians pine away for the nuclear family of the 50's (AFA, for example), but when the unwashed masses agree. [shudder] That is the first step towards a stagnant society.
HGP is fascinating, but Katz is right :: as with any new technologies, this one has the ability to be abused.
Cheers,
Brian
Sadly, I don't think they do.
It seems to me that people are missing the forest for the trees, the forest being consumerism, the trees being protecting the environment, or protecting American jobs from export, or protecting Trinidadian jobs (hmm, conflict of interest there? Which one do you want?).
It's the same way here at Ohio State. All these people protesting the WTO are going about it all wrong. They should be blowing up credit card companies :)
These protests are lacking any direction and focus. Katz nailed it on the head: the general feeling is anti-consumerism, and as soon as protesters realize that, they will be far more effective.
This has been a long time coming. Dr. Evil headquartered in Starbucks, Fight Club, etc etc. Here in Columbus there has been MASSSIVE lashback against big corporations displacing local businesses in the University District. And we love to riot here in Ohio! I can't wait until it all clicks together. :)
Cheers,
Brian
I'm in a Software Engineering sequence right now at Ohio State... and they hammer home again and again that the language is just the tool. They are teaching concepts of component based OO programming, which is really what you want to learn.
You can pick up multiple other languages in ONE credit hour classes here. Languages are easy - concepts are hard.
People seem to have a difficult time understanding that they are NOT supposed to be concentrating on the language, but the methods.
Cheers,
Brian
A clean product - maybe not. But cleaner is a very good idea, because the products are all the public have to judge the people behind the industry by.
What if the software (or that buggy OS) is used in a life-critical system? Does the programmer have a responsibility to ensure (to the best of his ability) a bug-free system? I would think so! Would civil engineers be allowed to build buggy bridges, or doctors perform buggy surgury?
Someone needs to stand up and stop the madness.
Cheers,
Brian
Surface mobility would seem to be a big issue in any long-term visit - and on Mars you don't need (as large and bulky) deep-sea diving suits. Plus, if we can figure out a way to release some of the CO2 in the ice caps & soil... rebreathers would be necessary, but no pressurized environment suits. Plus little atmosphere still = big help in radiation shielding. All plusses compared to the Moon.
Travel time is the only real issue concerning distance to Mars as opposed to the Moon. The delta-V difference is negligible (a Saturn V would've been big enough).
There is much more interesting (IMHO) science to be had on Mars. Water? Maybe. Microbal life (current or past)? Maybe. Plus I think it's a more viable option for long-term inhabitance.
If I had the pesos, I'd be headed to the Red Planet, myself.
Cheers,
Brian
Let's face it, and frontier land is, well, frontier land! Wyatt Earp, and all that. Nobody said it'd be easy, and you'd be a fool to think so.
And, while there isn't a heavy lift vehicle in place, we could cobble something together quite easily out of SRB's and a few Shuttle main engines that would have the necessary juice.
However, this is pretty out there. A big rock with no usable atmosphere seems pretty useless for anything except science and perhaps mining industry. Mars, on the other hand... :)
Cheers,
Brian
Technology isn't evil. It's risky when it isn't mature.
Look at the early stages of nuclear power. The gov't was blowin' up sh*t out west with people a few miles away watching - and receiving massive doses of radiation. Yeah, that sucked for those people, but what we learned about atomic power was great! Think of all the positive applications of nuclear power - naval power plants, spacecraft, traditional ground-based power, medical treatments, etc etc.
If nobody is willing to take on the possible risks of testing out new technologies, no advancement is possible - and potential long term benefits of the mature technology will not be achieved.
Besides, I'm positive that there are countless unforseen uses for this technology down the line - the sky is the limit, so to speak.
Well - yeah, I guess you could claim it's natural. Good or not is debatable - but it always is, since what could be classified as good is relativistic (thus are morals and ethics).
If we are capable of destroying ourselves (and we now are), and we do, did we deserve it? I think you could conclude (if conclusions are possible from beyond the grave) that we were incapable of handling our environment as well as we thought, and - frankly - natural selection rightly prevails again.
Would it then be the responsibility of the apes that then ruled the world to return us to non-extinct status when they possesed the technology to do so? :)
My brain hurts.
Who is able to say what is/is-not a "horrible, stupid, short-sighted mistake with horrible repurcussions"? There is no real absolute ethic or moral standard to apply here (is there ever?). One man's geese is another man's gander, etc etc. The fact is that we are a part of nature. These animals were driven to extinction simply because they were competing with the local humans for resources (livestock), and the humans were simply more able. Survival of the fittest. Mean? Yup. The past is the past. Attempting to right past wrongs sets a precipitous precedent... When do we return Neanderthals (or one of the other thousands upon thousands of extinct species) to the face of the planet? We surely aided their extinction by out-competing them for resources! We should persue this line of research - but not because we can right past wrongs - because we can, and will learn much from the efforts.