Look carefully at the OP! Notice how it mentions strict enforcement of anti-poaching laws. Wildlife preserves are an integral part of this plan too. I have not said otherwise at any point. What use is it to raise all sorts of animals if there is no place to return them to?
If I wanted to safely preserve every species included in the biological spectrum of life confined to reside in this blue oasis in space, I would like, built this huge self-sufficient, fusion reactor powered ark, and then like put a pair of every species inside so they could like reproduce and stuff. Then we construct a huge rocket to carry the ark into space, put the ark in the cargo bay and ZUM! Off to space it goes.
Once in orbit, it deploys the ark in geo-stationary orbit. We could even put in instruments to measure the effects of low gravity on animals. And why stop there? We could throw in some Discovery channel tapes of animals getting laid in the wild (animal porn). This way we can study sex in space, I mean, what can be more important than understanding how a horny elephant manages to impregnate his fat-ass partner in a zero gravity environment?
Imaging for a moment the sheer excitement of watching a pair of roaches hitting it off whit Also Sprach Zarathustra playing on the background? Can you possibly fathom the imposing image of a lion masturbating in space, all the tiny spermatozoids floating together like ballerinas in a perfectly choreographed vision of grandeur? How about a menage a trois of copulating rhinos? Furthermore, we could even get them dildos, vibrators and other sex toys. Boy, it just keeps getting more interesting by the minute!
I bet the networks would kill for the rights to broadcast the event live from the ark. They could even install a pussy-cam to get a close-up of the penetrating motion and fluid deployment extravaganza. Jerry Springer and Howard Stern could do the play by play with commentaries by Dr. Ruth. I mean, the ratings would go off the charts; forget about reality shows like Survivor, animal sex in space is the way to go!
But, most important of all, the animals would be safe, protected from the evil wrath of man, separated from their greatest nemesis by 35900 km of thin air. Even better, we could go on animal killing spree back here on earth since there would be no risk of animal extinction whatsoever. Heck, we can even kill the animals preserved in the zoos. Those bastards, sitting there all day doing nothing except for wasting us taxpayers good money. Grrr!
Evidently, a new legislation will be developed outlawing animal hunting in space. As a matter of fact, we could camouflage an antimissile defense system inside the ark and nobody would suspect a thing since it is an ecological preserve, right? What sick mind would suspect of us Americans using animals as a decoy to deploy a nuclear treaty violating defense system. I wonder why no one had ever thought of it before. We could even call it Star Wars. Now, that would be really cool, literally out of this world.
Now, as to the name for the ark, a few choices come to mind: Biosphere-3, Space PANDAmonium and Laika’s Orbiting Playhouse, to name a few.
Pd. This is a serious proposal currently under study by Congress. Some relevant contents such as the aerodynamically designed toilets, fart containing system, animal droppings compactor, pheromone ventilator, spermatozoid collider and cryogenic camera for polar bear preservation have been omitted due to their obvious national security implications.
Any irony detected on the previous post is purely coincidental. All names utilized are fictitious; whatever resemblance with any entertainment business personalities or dead space traveling dogs is, also, purely coincidental.
Pd. #2 Votes for stupidest post ever are appreciated. A thread to accommodate vote tallying for such an effect shall be initiated soon. Check our your local SDMB forums for up to date information pertaining this matter!
how about farming whales in Great Salt Lake? eh? eh?
QUASAR:
You made me laugh to tears, my stomach aches…
Therefore you have my vote.
Heck, if I wanted to do that, I’d just scrape off little bits of the animals before they die out, then find some similar species that could act as surrogates, make some clones, and stick 'em in the surrogate mothers …
oh wait
Well, since panamajack has resurrected this thread, I have to say that I don’t know how I missed Quasar’s heavy-on-the-irony-sauce post. Most anything thinkable becomes ridiculous if you take it to the extreme logical conclusion.
That said, the humor content was pretty funny stuff. Now, if only such a fine mind could have made a substantitive contribution it would have been nice.
Zenster, you are giving me far too much credit. Your comments on my intelligence are excessively kind. Unfortunately, they fail to grasp the truly pathetic nature of the lousy entity that is my brain.
This description, an extract from this post of mine attempting to make sense of my real and virtual personas, gives a closer to reality, and more well informed, characterization of my lame intellectual abilities.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
On a more relevant subject
I don’t know why you dismissed my initial proposal of using cloning of animal body parts to drive down the demand for their skin, tusks or whatever other part of their anatomy that can be used to satisfy society’s artificially created needs for esthetically acceptable clothing and jewelry. Such a course of action would, by reducing existing demand, diminish hunting and thus contribute to endangered species preservation. I agree that this could only materialize on the long term, but it is a feasible and hopefully inevitable scenario. As such, I believe it merits serious consideration.
Rather gullible, aren’t you? You should realize that not everything PETA says is true.
Rather a jerk, aren’t you? I never heard any of this from PETA. I did a great deal of my own research a few years ago after seeing Mindwalk. I spent several afternoons in the Chicago Publich Library main branch digging through the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature and reading probably a couple dozen articles in a wide range of magazines and newspapers to reach the conclusion you so gullibly (do you believe everything James Garner tells you?) dismissed above.
Lissener:
I would like to know more more about the $30.00/pound figure, and how you arrived at it.
Scylla, I did all that reading in like 1992. The figure I remember arriving at was around $32-and-something-cents a pound. I’m really not interested in re-researching it all just to argue with someone (The Ryan) who is not interested in doing his own research before reflexively contradicting a position that seems to be in agreement with a group he dislikes. (FWIW, I don’t have much use for PETA either.)
I’m sure if you do some searching you should be able to find some relevant information.
Lissener:
No problemo. You have generally shown yourself to be damn accurate and knowledgeable on wildlife facts and issues.
I’m out here in farm country and they raise quite a few beeves around me. I thought the number seemed high to me, but I haven’t done any research.