ᕙ(⇀‸↼✿)ᕗ

Southwestern black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis bicornis

I think the ethics of jurassicparking animals is complicated by the existence of companies like colossal biosciences, who market the idea of bringing back extinct animals but then do it by doing a few basic gene edits on existing animals and saying it's equivalent to the extinct animal without any evidence...

...i truly detest the misinformation colossal biosciences spread, i was initially optimistic but I'm not really optimistic anymore. They basically completely misled the public on what a direwolf was, genetically altering a wolf to look like the fantasy creature from Game of Thrones and completely disregarding that dire wolves were a completely different branch of the canine family that had just convergently evolved to look similar. that's so wildly irresponsible I can't ignore it

...and even in jurassic park they weren't actually bringing back the dinosaurs, just using dinosaur DNA and the DNA of living animals to create something marketable as a dinosaur

But let's say we disqualified things like that from being eligible for the thought experiment and instead assume you can bring back the extinct animal or at least get a close version using DNA from the extinct animal mixed with a same-genus relative

it would have to be a pretty recently extinct animal, that could survive in the climate of today, and it would have to be something that could be ethically kept in captivity.

Mammoths are right out since, being elephants, they almost definitely were highly intelligent creatures with multi-generational social structures. If you create a mammoth you dont have mother and grandmother mammoths to help raise the baby. You'd have to foster using elephants but that's not quite the same. It seems unlikely that recreating them would be ethical with the amount we don't know about their behavior and social needs

Also it seems unlikely that mammoths could survive well in the contemporary climate

A better idea might be to try a much more recently extinct animal like the ivory billed woodpecker or Carolina parakeet. However, the habitat those animals lived in is still minimally existent (old growth pine savannahs and canebrakes)...

To be honest, I think the best application for jurassic-park type technologies in conservation is adding genetic diversity to existing critically endangered species. It's already happening to some extent, cloning has been used to grow babies of critically endangered species from the DNA of long-dead and preserved individuals.

I also think that genetic modification technologies can and should be used to help preserve endangered species but corporations owning those genetically modified creatures or deciding what gets preserved and how, and what is done with the creatures, is such an incredible danger.

For example, genetically modified American chestnut trees that are better at surviving the blight could be the best chance of bringing them back, but what if some company like colossal biosciences wanted to bring them back, and then decided they "owned" that species and could decide who was allowed to plant one and propagate it?

laws restricting this sort of thing would also probably be written so that they favor the corporations.

It feels like a uniquely American capitalist take to assume these traditions will make you completely self sufficient. You need a lot of people, a lot of time, a lot of knowledge across a lot of subjects, and a lot of luck to provide for everyone's nutritional needs.

So should you even bother trying to be more self sufficient with your food? I argue yes. Foraging and gardening are fun and will teach you so much about many things. They are deeply rewarding activities that can supplement your diet. There are herbs I haven't bought in years because I grow my own. There are dishes I can only make with foraged ingredients because I can't get them in stores.

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)

PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that's before you get into American painted murals: