Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26271766-20150608215432/@comment-109.175.232.192-20150612131734

Ganbarvgad wrote: 109.175.232.192 wrote: Ganbarvgad wrote: 109.175.232.192 wrote: Fleunapt wrote:

109.175.232.192 wrote:

Fleunapt wrote:

109.175.232.192 wrote: They have a lot of money and must know a lot of lawyers plus since the dinosaurs are cloned if the dinosaur dies from mistreatment then they can create another from the same or very similar DNA coding which could pass it off as the same animal or they may only show the well treated animals on inspection. i was referring to the fact that they feed the carnivores live animals Well Colin Trevorrow said in regards to Jurassic World that the sharks InGen used to feed the mosasaur were also cloned so at least in the updated park they seem to have employed the cloning techniques on present day animals so they could feed the creatures they keep. It may not be ethical that they purposefully clone animals that will be eaten it's no different to how present day livestock we eat today is bred I mean in terms of the animal been raised for slaughter so the fact that the animals are cloned so in theory InGen can make as many as they want as well as the purpose being they are bred for slaughter you can't really bring an action against them for that since they are made for a specific purpose and could rely on say for example a farmer breeding cattle to be butchered and sold for consumption it may be a cause for concern to some groups of people but to society as a whole it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary if you take away the animals only source of food then you put that animal at risk as well which could be infringing another animals right. Whilst you could make a case of the prey animal being alive being unnecessary for that to occur InGen could just as well turn around and say that the dinosaurs need to be able to hunt and kill their prey and that if they fed them dead animals it would surpress their natural traits which could make them more aggressive amongst themselves as well as to their handlers. All in all if InGen is cloning animals for the dinosaurs to be fed you can't really make much of a case against them since they wouldn't be infringing any rights. If you wanted to pull them up on that sort of thing you would have to find evidence that InGen was mistreating the animals but since there's no evidence of that you couldn't really do anything about it. Having said that one possibility is an animal rights activist could focus on the sickly triceratops and how the growing of toxic plant life just because it looks "pretty" could be a direct result of the triceratops' condition and therefore shows a lack of concern about the animals which could prove mistreatment would probably be the only way that anyone could make a claim against InGen when it comes to animal rights. i don't think ingen cloned the animals they feed to the carnivores, also , PETA would be on their case all the time Well the sharks are supposed to be cloned according to Trevorrow as he stated outright that InGen has a facility on the island to mass produce great white sharks to be fed to the mosasaur since there was conroversy over this since the Great White shark is an endangered species as are most sharks and to be honest when it comes to animals I don't think you can ever avoid PETA especially not in media sources as they seem to be drawn like a moth to a flame to anything regarding an animal even if it to most people seems fairly harmless and not something to fuss over. The goats T Rex eats on the other hand may be reared and brought to the island and are not cloned but PETA and other animal rights groups although outraged by it may not kick up as much of a fuss as goats aren't endangered and InGen would simply argue that if you deny the dinosaurs food then they'll die or they'll suffer malnutrition because we can't feed them since they don't respond well to other food as they've been bred on that type of food source so InGen would simply argue that if they take that away then they will be taking away that dinosaurs right to life because you remove the food source and it's not like T Rex is all of a sudden going to turn round and start eating vegetation it's not evolved that way.

Here is the link to a website discussing Trevorrow alluding to the shark cloning factory on Isla Nublar:

http://www.themarysue.com/jurassic-world-sharks-raptors/

Granted he says it seems likely they would do that and from the mass hysteria it has caused amongst the public about the shark then it would seem only right that if InGen were real they would take that on board and cloning a shark from the present day would be incredibly easy for Dr Wu and the other scientists compared to cloning an extinct T Rex I mean they manage to create an entirely new species so it's not that far fetched to think they would do that plus it would save them vast amounts of money in the long run as they wouldn't have to pay for it's import and the tax on top of that if they make the dinosaurs food as well I mean we already know they created certain plants for the herbivores to eat so why wouldn't they provide for the carnivores as well. i figured ingen was more focused on dinosaur dna than modern animal dna True they are but we know they use frog DNA to complete the dinosaurs DNA strands and if you take Indominus Rex for example she has a DNA mix of both several dinosaurs and modern animals so it really wouldn't be that difficult for them to clone modern animals I mean when InGen first started they would likely have had to start with modern animals and perfect that kind of process before moving onto an extinct animal (well at least that seems the most logical way of going about it) so for InGen in my view it seems the cloning aspect is more second nature to them it's the gene splicing and DNA formation that they have to pool more resources towards which you would only need for the dinosaur breeding so as to me cloning for InGen is an incredibly simplistic process so creating cloned modern animals for food sources wouldn't be too much of a problem for them.

I mean I don't think we can be 100% sure that the cloning is as easy as I seem to be making out but from what we can see there is a heavy focus on the amber to extract dinosaur DNA from fossilised mosquitos and cloning seems to be less apparent in the sources though we know they do it we don't know how it is done but I don't think it is much of a problem for them especially if they managed to create a vast number of species with many individuals within those species Hammond is mentioned to keep ordering Raptors to be transported to Isla Nublar in JP:TG so they must have numerous individuals of the same species and then you have Isla Sorna which has become more of a wildlife preserve with an unknown number of species though in JW it does seem they have regulated this moreso.

I don't think it is particularly difficult for them to perform the cloning process and if you already have the DNA strands why not you need to keep the animals fed and what's creating 1 goat compared to creating an ankylosaur or an apatosaur to use Dr Grant's words "that's how you play God," something Dr Wu seems to be very keen on doing in particular. I have to say though it seems more likely that Simon Masrani would adapt this process for Jurassic World than John Hammond would for Jurassic Park but if you think about it it really wouldn't be very difficult for InGen to do this and they would safe on costs and therefore ascertain more money which is what their company is all about even though John Hammond himself may not necessarily be. So I do agree with you that their primary focus is the dinosaurs but it, to me, doesn't seem that difficult for them to go about doing especially when doing so would greatly benefit them as well as keep animal rights groups like PETA off their backs. it's hard to keep PETA away Haha yeah it is