Demographic data can be inferred from usage data. And if you're in a demographic that is currently being persecuted by certain lawmakers, that is a dangerous situation.

There was a time when Target outed a young woman as pregnant to her dad because of her shopping habits, Google would be able to know that just as much or more. For a current events example, someone searching for abortion access in a restricted state could be at risk of that data being used against them.

For a more direct situation, predatory advertisements would be able to pick out vulnerable people from the tracked data, and exclusively target them, like a payday loan agency only targeting those already deep in debt.

haven't worked out the kinks yet on modern animals. Only 22 species have been cloned with 19 species able to result in an adult.

So, in spite of the thought its a common and easy thing to do, its not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15097-7#:~:text=Introduction,be%20the%20first%20cloned%20mammal.

The next issue is economics. If you were to choose an animal to clone would it be an animal that is broadly useful to human kind and have a return on investment to pay for the costs of development, or would you choose an animal that is expensive to keep and a great public interest as a curiosity, but won't solve an important problem or make enough money (even in zoo ticket sales)?

P.S. Don't tell me the economics of tourism and ticket sales for views will pay for the cost of cloning a DoDo....its still more valuable to clone a mundane animal like a super cow that produces lots of milk and/or meat.

>in sexual intercourse, a lot of people seem to have decided safewords to ensure that nobody is made uncomfortable, which is great! but i don’t understand why the word “stop” couldn’t be used. why would you need to decide on a completely unrelated word for when you’d like to stop instead of just saying stop?

Because since whatever you and your partner(s) of choice end up doing might just happen to involve roleplay. If, for example, the point of the whole enterprise is to involve a party feigning reluctance, then "stop" literally and genuinely meaning "Stop what you're doing!" would sabotage the arrangement.

A safeword/safety action is used in any situation where the word "stop" cannot otherwise be used to stop. Examples being: when the word stop is part of roleplay, or when the use of the mouth is limited.

as far as i understand its because depending on what's being done the word " stop" might be part of the play(possibly leading to your partner unwillingly injuring them or worse). hence why in these its " safer"(heh) if this word as something as outlandish as possible ot make it perfectly clear that w/e is happening needs to end NOW.

[deleted]

About 52% of births are male. By the time you reach 18 the population is near 50/50 due to a higher male death rate. In later adulthood there are more women. So it averages to approximately 1:1.

This happens a lot on Reddit with reposts.

For most of them, there aren't any samples of cells that are healthy enough to be cloned. Mammoths are an exception (and in fact scientists managed to clone mammoth cells) because they can be found perfectly preserved in ice.

What could possibly go wrong?

It's down to states rights currently in the USA, and funding is hard to get generally afaik

I'm not super well versed in biology or cloning to confidently answer this question

A lot of pelts are treated with things like arsenic or mercury which really fucks up DNA. They have been able to get samples off pelts, they did with tasmanian devils a few years back, but I'm not sure how viable that in regards to cloning.

Thanks all for the insight.

No laws against cloning animals in Germany, Great Britain, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece and The United States

This is not a paradox for 2 reasons:

1. You are assuming language is logically consistent, it is not.

2. You are assuming logically consistent systems are also complete, they are not.

On that second point, could a pelt be used? Or does the process of preserving a pelt render the DNA unusable?

Edit: clarified the question

> they need good DNA samples to try and clone from and folks wiping species from existence weren’t really in the habit of preserving remains

Couldn’t they just fill in the missing gaps in DNA with that of similar specimens? Frogs capable of asexually reproducing, for example?

Cloning specimens doesnt solve the inherent problems that led ot these species becoming exctint, be it

lack of a stable population (major disparaty in gender+ long gestation cycles makes a species weak to long periods of scarcity),

a lack of suitable habitat(often because we over took them or in some way affected it negatively),

a change in the overall ecosystem that makes the current iteration of the animal unviable(like the dod for instance effectively only surviving in a place where they had no natural predators).

then you have the issue that a population of clones faces the real risk of a genetic bottleneck which can lead to a vulnerability to a pathogen and the follies that come with inbreeding.(ie the main cause cheetahs were andstill are in danger is because they have a significant genetic bottleneck making a lot of their population majorly inbred.)

Some people die twice.but men die earlier. So women live more years, so at any given time you´d expect more women to be alive than men.

But because of this there are more men born than women (105/100), so it almost evens out in the long run

To elaborate... I don't have the source but only about 50% of the male population is reproducing anyway so the more men dying in war/etc... just get swallowed up in the 50% not reproducing

[removed]

The birth rate for males is higher. For 2020, the ratio varied between around 1.02 males/female to 1.13 males/female, depending on which country you're looking at. Since those children then go on to have higher likelihood to die before maturity than the females, the two groups are pretty close to 1 male/female at maturity.

That is the thing that the Fisher principle predicts - an environment where males die without reproducing more frequently than females do will produce a selective pressure that means more males will be born in order to compensate.

Dude, I know what brine is. You're being perfidious. Making vegetables shed water is not adding brine or using brine. It's just a salt fermentation. Look at any pickle jar and the liquid to vegetable ratio isn't anything like sauerkraut. You're really stretching the argument beyond the dictionary definition.

Let's just leave it here. Agree to disagree.

Women have a far more dangerous modern day issue facing them than men, giving birth.

While we've mostly overcome that issue in the modern world, it's still one of the most dangerous things that you can do, and only half the population can do it.