English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This maybe kinda gross or whatever but why don't we save sperm/seaman from endangered species.So then if the animals start to disappear they/us can in plant the females with what we have frozen?just kinda curious about that after meeting jeff corwin and him talking about seeing the last bird of his bread on earth.

2007-12-16 16:28:20 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Conservation

5 answers

thats a good question, probably too political to answer.

2007-12-16 19:30:12 · answer #1 · answered by Paul V 2 · 0 0

There are a few seed banks located throughout the world to preserve the biodiversity of plants. They are EXTREMELY useful. Most of our food crops are very genetically uniform. But even at extremely low storage temperatures, the seeds need to be planted and then harvested, and then refrozen. The shelf life is not forever. I assume that the shelf live of frozen tissue samples would not be as long as seeds. So you'd probably have to clone rare animals over and over and then extract fresh DNA. The better answer maybe to do a complete DNA sequence and store the info electronically. Then at a future date (because we can't do it now) take the data and recreate the animal. p.s. would you like to volunteer to get a sperm sample from a blue whale?

2007-12-17 07:13:02 · answer #2 · answered by IplayadoconTV 5 · 1 0

Why could we defend animals that won't be able to even defend themselves? Waste of money Ignores human suffering whether it would be advantageous to guard the endangered species from transforming into to be extinct, it’s a organic potential of evolution. The “fittest” doesn’t matter on whether a species is powerful, enormous, or crafty vs. those which at the instant are not, “fittest” potential people who're adaptable and able to passing on their genes to offsprings and etc. attempting to keep species that won't be able to stay to tell the tale in its atmosphere now and lower back technology isn’t appropriate and Nature is purely inexplicable and previous our administration. No experience in ignoring suffering contributors of our very own species and meddling with different endangered species. It’s unrealistic to keep each and every animal. There are extra urgent issues (SE Cupp) something new will crop up, as continuously. We wouldn’t be right here if the dinosaurs have been nonetheless alive multiple the heavily endangered species no longer impact the nutrition chain with the aid of fact of its shrink in numbers. Of the numerous animals that qualifies to be on the endangered species record, purely a million% truthfully taken out of it. forty-one,415 species are on the endangered species record, so what impression is our billions of greenbacks spent on attempting to keep endangered species doing? Why can’t we purely enable it flow? That’s the circle of life. Animals who won't be able to adapt to their changing environments die. I understand that the intentions are good, yet haven’t we performed adequate at manipulating nature? i think of that saving animals isn't something extra beneficial than human beings s tries at attempting to administration nature, properly, extra so than we already have.

2016-11-03 13:09:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Sperm and egg banks are already saved as well as tissue samples(DNA). I don't know if anyone has considered all species or if there is one bank for all endangered species.. There are new species still being discovered.

2007-12-17 14:43:03 · answer #4 · answered by paul 7 · 0 0

Excellent idea. We go with it starting tomorrow.

2007-12-17 01:14:04 · answer #5 · answered by Ransom 4 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers