> 1) We didn't do it, so it's not our fault, hence we're not morally OBLIGATED to try
> to rectify the situation (which since they're long gone, would have involved cloning
> naturally preserved DNA samples, etc).

So, somehow, in your mind, a given species like "human beings" for example, all share the same "moral obligations"? OK, so exactly why is that? are you suggesting that there is some co-ordination between the various minds? and if so, what is it?

Also, why do you "think" that doing what you are suggesting would somehow try to "rectify" the situation? Are you following some "blue print" of time/space reality that has the right coordinates and therefore, allows you to make such specific calls for the rectification and/or correction of our collective course? In other words, are you following a specific "purpose" and/or "guidelines" and if so, where did you get those "guidelines" from?

> 2) We don't HAVE to try bringing them back (see #1, above), but it would still be a
> nice thing to do. Diversity is fascinating! Wouldn't YOU give your eyeteeth to see
> a herd of mastodon in the wild? Or a terratornis overhead?

An alternative approach to set your time machine to the correct time/space coordinates!
So, maybe my blue print to see the mastodon is a bit better than yours...

It seems to me that is is much easier and better "design" to space things in time/space vs. trying to crowd everything at the same exact place/point! But, then again, my "blue print" is not the same as yours, but then I really wonder, based on all the evidence that we "see" which one is the one that is being executed !

> > > .....I'd consider it criminal to NOT save a species when
> > > we have the ability to do so.
> >
> > OK. What about when a species is extinct by
> > nature, do you also consider that to be 'criminal'?
>
> No motive, often no perp per se, hence no "crime" involved (accident or random
> happening only). But I do consider it a bad thing.

Fascinating! So, randomness is your safety valve in terms of motive!!!
Yet, you still are able to give it a moral judgment since you consider it a "bad thing"!!!

Sorry, if my comments and questions are formulated like this, but I do have a very specific reason and purpose to delineate them like this since I am searching for the source of your moral guidelines...

> > > 2) Besides, White settlement of Tasmania has
> > > already decreased TD numbers & put
> > > pressures on them. They'd have stood a better
> > > chance of surviving this on their own
> > > if the settlers hadn't interfered with them
> > > over these last few centuries (aboriginal
> > > Tasmanian humans coexisted with them
> > > peacefully for tens of thousands of years).....
> >
> > Well, nature always re-balances itself one way or
> > another. In my opinion, if the TD's are suppose to
> > become extinct, they will become extinct one way
> > or another. I am sorry, but I do not believe in
> > changes!!!
>
> Maybe not.... but this DOES make you sound like you believe in predestination?

Of course. Forces guide all natural occurances (action/reaction) and, therefore, one is never at the right place at the right time or wrong place at the wrong time just by accident! There is no such thing as randmoness!!!

> Yup. But "nature" doesn't consciously introduce exotic species into a new habitat.

Do you have any evidence of that? and also, what do you mean by "consciously"? Do you mean by design? Please define "consciously" for me in accordane to your own understanding of it?

> We are sentient, we have free will......

I am sorry to disagree! We have "perceived" free will (or subjective personal reality) but, either case, how can you say that (we have free will) when you also say above that we all collectivelly have a ""moral obligations"? So, which one gives, the collective moral obligation or the free will?

Do you understand that one cannot have both at the same time since they are mutually exclusive of each other?

> thus we ALSO have responsibility for our actions, and a (lesser) obligation to assist
> even when it's not our fault, "if" we have the opportunity.

Well, a more correct "scientific" term would be that there is a reaction for every action, so the consequences are 'built-in' by this simple fact! There is a reaction for every action that one does and/or takes.

The concept of responsibility is, therefore, to have a prior understanding and intelligence of what would be the reaction for all possible actions that one takes and therefore act accordingly. However, if you does that or takes that to the extreme, then, once again, all the free will is gone!!!

Either case, you also seem to have placed a 'weight' associated with direct action/reaction vs. indirect (in terms of assistance when it is not one's fault, as you wrote it). This suggests a certain structure and order to things in terms of your concept of responsibility. Meaning that when there is an "irresponsible" person/being on top of that food chain, then everything will or should fall apart!

So, how do you "conpensate" for such an error in your own subjective personal reality view of things?

-wirelessguru1