Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Since you are making such a claim, is that something you have experience with?
It is indeed good news.
So are you going to answer some of the other questions?
No, it's clearly much more efficient to develop an overcomplicated and expensive technology that will never generate a population sufficient to re-habitate the wild areas (which no longer exist).
But hey, at least we will still be able to gawk at a few chronically depressed specimens in zoos as "proof" that they aren't *technically* extinct. Hooray, planet saved! 🌍✨
Fair enough.
I don´t think any animals are a danger to us, we are all a danger to them however.
It is too costly to ask people to not get cheap ikea furniture etc. So we can´t just stop ruining their habitats.. but saving them and putting them in a zoo... that will most likely be the way.