Ah....... I have just recently seen an episode of The Future is Wild and I am in two minds, I cant judge the series as I have only seen the one part but so far the future looks really crap.
The part i watched (was on at about 2AM and after a bottle (or two) of house red) was the section on the Amazonian grasslands... IE once the Amazon rainforest dissapears.
There was nothing in this programme other than DEvolution... or stuff that has already happened... carakillers, babookaris and rattlebacks... All have had very similar things happen in the past of present... one advance was the catching fish in a basket theory.... Surely they meant that making this docu was shooting fish in a basket? Give the people what they want? Make the birds look like dinosaurs again was the answer!
Surely imaginations, cause that's all it is, could have been exercised a bit better here? As it is all just theories why not really go wild on a savanah?
my suggestion is a carnivourous rhino type beast that is decendant from the possum that eats Carakillers... its horn is detachable and is used to spear prey. Growing to 3 meters tall, the Rhiposso has hands with eight fingers and its hair is blue... it lays eggs which are made of wood so that they dont smash when falling from such a height and the babies when hatched are winged and spend the first three years of their lives in the treetops.
I must say, it isn't as great as I thought it would be...I don't like how they keep repeating the same shot over and over, just flipping them so it is supposed to look different. And if I hear anyone say "but, 50 million years in the future" one more time, I am going to scream!
Perhaps I'm simply an uncharitable fellow, but the experts seem more than just a little twitchy. I suspect their fantasy lives involve braziers of incense and animal minions. "Praetorian Squibbons, fetch me a sassy new oracle." That sort of thing.
wouldnt surpirse me...i thouhgt i saw an ad for it on animal planet....ive never been a fan of them... is it me or has scientific tv (discovery, nat'l geo., discovery, etc) gotten a tad preachy? unfortunately i do have something to compare it to... a couple of years ago i lived with 2 bio majors and my then girlfriend..... my partner in crime (one of the bio majors not my gf) and i were subjected to all kinds of inane animal oriented programing but never really preached at..... the past two or three months when ive been flipping channels and beeen taken aback at their attitudes (plus the idiotic home video shows on animal planet)...
is knowledge available anymore without a perspective?
clem - its not only the "experts" but probably the animators too...
Well, the Big Calamari (a retired high school biology teacher) agrees with y'all about TFIW. Though he enjoys the show immensely, he considers it "info-tainment" with not much basis in evolutionary science. F'rinstance, when it was mentioned that insects would grow larger because "there will be more oxygen in Earth's atmosphere", he immediately questioned why there would be more oxygen (it was never explained). He also doubted that Cephs would move onto the land ( ~ snif ~)
I don't care, I enjoy it anyway. (Besides, on that show about the Moon, a geologist speculated that if there were no Moon the dominant life form on Earth would probably be Cephs. Deal with that, O ye of little faith!)
Still the dominant life form on this PC (about 50% of the time),