SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In October, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released its biennial Living Planet Report, detailing the state of the planet and its implications for humans and wildlife. The report warned that two-thirds of global wildlife populations could be gone by 2020 if we don't change our environmentally damaging practices.
At the Singularity University New Zealand (SUNZ) Summit we met up with Dr Amy Fletcher, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Canterbury, who spoke on the topic of public policy and exponential technology at the Summit. As part of our regular "One Big Question [OBQ]" series we asked her whether we should consider bioengineering animals that could live in the world we're creating, rather than die in the one we're destroying?
That sort of relates to the whole de-extinction debate, and again, I would pay money to see a woolly mammoth. But I do take the point that the world of the woolly mammoth is gone, whether we like it or not, same with the moa – I mean this comes up a lot in criticisms of the bring back the moa project. You've got to have huge swathes of undeveloped space - maybe we still have that, but we don't have as much as we did in the 16th century.
I guess it comes back to not making the perfect the enemy of the good. Working in conservation, extinction issues like I do, I meet a lot of people who are deeply opposed, actively opposed, say to zoos. I think in an imperfect world, I'd rather have animals in a well run and ethical zoo than not have them at all. But I do have colleagues in the animal rights movement who say, if we don't value them enough to let them live in their natural environment, then we should pay the price of having them go. It's sort of that same thing, I mean, if the alternative to living in a world of simply humans, rats, cockroaches and pigeons is bioengineering animals, I would have to say, alright yeah, we're going to have to do that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:33AM
[How Much] Should We Bioengineer Animals to Live in Our Damaged World?
It's called a loaded question. My world is not damaged. It used to be much worse when smokestacks in every industrial country spewed soot out, as if trying to cause nuclear winter. We are doing just fine today, and will be even better tomorrow. Our cars will be electric in 10-20 years from now, our power will be coming from renewable sources, and we will be spending more and more time in the Matrix.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:37AM
Have you stopped beating your wife? [fallacyfiles.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:13PM
Not today! *cue Avengers theme*
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:52AM
Yes, because lithium mining is great for the environment.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:03AM
It's just too bad that we will never invent a battery better than Lithium ion. [/s] Note that I'm not claiming abundance of EVs today - I know that today's EVs are a joke; they work best only as single-purpose vehicles. Give them 10-20 years, perhaps some graphene ultracapacitors will become available, or hydrogen as energy storage, or powered roads... there are always possibilities.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 28 2016, @07:06PM
This year's report states that the number of vertebrates in the world fell by well over half between 1970 and 2012 and that, without intervention, the decline will continue, leading to up to 67 percent of all animals being gone by 2020.
...
The report states that, overall, the Global LPI shows a "persistent downward trend."
I guess that's a problem for future-Homer. Man I don't envy that guy.