The strip is decades old. I cannot remember the creator or name of the strip. I want to purchase it and frame it as a gift for a friend.
As an active member of one of the Planet Zoo Discord server, one topic of heated debate that frequently persists is whether or not extinct animals should be in Planet Zoo (base-game or otherwise). As someone who actively enjoys learning about extinct animals, it's painful to get flamed down and get essentially told, "no, you can't want this".
But rather than attack my anti-extinct opponents directly for their beliefs, I've decided to do a write-up in support of why I personally believe adding extinct animals to Planet Zoo would be an overall win. This will be done by attacking counterpoints my opponents have presented numerous times (also the fact that Discord's high-speed nature makes debates messier).
^(Sidenote: When I'm referring to extinct DLC, I mean animals that went extinct from the late Pleistocene to today. Dinosaurs would cannibalize sales of Jurassic World Evolution.)
"Extinct animals are a waste of resources and take time away from living animals."
The main argument here is that making extinct animal DLC must use up resources and that could be spent on animals alive today.
This argument is fallacious because it assumes Frontier must make DLC for a game up until a certain period of time, giving their resources and time a limit. I will use two games to refute the notion that DLC has a fixed timespan.
- Frontier's Elite: Dangerous, a game that's over 4 years old, is receiving an update this month. It's highly evident that Frontier very much wants to support their games as long as possible.
- Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. Ultimate was just given a DLC extension 5 days ago.. Though Frontier isn't as financially powerful as Nintendo, it's still an observation that DLC can absolutely be extended beyond initial timespans. This in turn makes resources and time as limited as the developers want it to be (in the case of Frontier, a very long time)
I'm also going to ignore that fact that the argument also assumes extinct animals are supposedly "inferior" to extant animals. This is something so completely subjective that arguing about this will get nobody anywhere.
"Extinct animals go against to point of conservation. Why save the orangutans when you can clone more at will?"
Here's some interesting trivia: [Much of the world's permafrost is melting thanks to climate change, caus
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I assume any endeavor to clone a mammoth wouldn't just take a newborn and throw it into the arctic to fend for itself. Likely it would be born and reared from an elephant. If that were the case would it ever be able to live in cold climates?
edit: i finally found one while using an epic scent in nyc. i need to find one more in order to create it.
