Okay, I'll be the one who actually likes this. It's becoming a distinctly London style that will feel iconic by the time it's all done, and I'm a fan of the new modern architecture going up around the globe.

Sure, I'd probably be happy to live there, too. It's the looking at it that would suck.

We're going to get a very touching movie about mouse droid

Disney owns Star Wars, Disney owns Pixar, and Pixar was started by George Lucas. The Cycle, is now complete.

More blonde girl, less everything else.

That's also the best way to grow your own breasts.

You are named from one of the nakedest shows on TV and you are complaining about excessive nudity? hmm...

Too bad all the guys were thinking "don't get a boner. don't get a boner. don't get a boner".

Ugh, that blonde was way to shy. At the end of the video, that'd be my first move.

I'm down. The arguments against bringing species back actually pushed me more towards being in favor of it, because apparently the best reason people can come up with not to do this is that it's a waste of time and money, not that it would actually have any negative effects. If the worst that can be said about…

and the ones we can't directly de-extinct because there's too little DNA left, we can create reasonable facsimiles of.

The time dilation at 10% of the speed of light is very small. If I calculated correctly, over 45 years for the observer on Earth, the traveler would only see about 11 weeks less time pass (the factor is the square root of 0.99). In other words, the traveler would age 44 years and ~ 283 days.

"At 10% of the speed of light ... Proxima Centuri could be reached in approximately 45 years — less than a human lifetime."

Sadly not, for all the reasons mentioned by Ehrlich as well as other practical considerations. How does one impart learned behaviors to a species that has no living adults to teach the next generation? Would a wooly mammoth gestated in an elephant even be a wooly mammoth in some sense, given what we know about…

Ecosystems don't respond to changes very quickly (and also, you assume that an alternate niche species exists in the first place). You just need to look at all the mass extinctions that occurred in the past: It took hundreds of thousands of years for the ecosystems of the planet to adjust to those massive changes.…

Well, at the rate we're going, we are going to need to de-extinct everything so we can re-extinct it, because we are running out of things to extinct, and we'll have to extinct ourselves when we run out.

Did it go extinct naturally, or due to human interference with ecosystems? If it's the former, then no. Nature ran its course for that species. If it's the latter, then yes. We should at least attempt to undo the damage we've done.

That's true, but it also works the other way around. Introduce a new species and it'll throw things into disarray. Which will eventually subside and balance out in time.

:/ Ok, so... Maybe we should continue to look into building a titanic laser on Mercury to power huge solar sail vehicles out of the solar system.

What’s more, the absence of such evidence might suggest there is an upper limit to how far a technological civilization can progress. Or, more sobering, it means there are narrow limits on the longevity of a technological society."