You're assuming these transits would occur frequently and that we actually have the equipment pointed at the sky to detect them. Even if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs as stars in the galaxy, actually seeing one pass in front of another star would be an extremely rare occurrence and we'd only detect if we were looking right at that star. Even then we'd only detect a small decrease in light and we'd be unable to distinguish it from the transit of a planet with a long orbital period. Also, consider the velocity of stars in relation to each other? The transit may only visible for a fraction of a second...in which case we wouldn't be able to detect it at all.

Brown dwarfs are small. And we can only detect exoplanets by detecting the effect they have on the wobble of the host star, by their transit of the star, or very rarely we can see light from extremely hot planets.

Even at 200 times, collisions would be extremely rare. And the collision would be a non-event as far as the earth is concerned. Why don't they collapse into stars [assuming the collision produced a star with sufficient mass to be a star]. Maybe they are? Still the collisions would be so rare that we'd almost certainly never witness the event.

The only part of your argument that really works. Even with the limited instruments we have now, we'd expect to see more if there were 200 times as many brown dwarfs. But then, we're discovering a lot more of these now that we have instruments designed to find them. Regardless, I don't think 200 times the number would account for the missing mass.

This statement is a bit reminiscent of my fellow nerdy friends when I was growing up who could not fathom filling a 100 megabyte harddrive.

Indirectly. I'm seeing several people arguing to let nature take it's course. I'm seeing people argue against transhumanist goals.

No. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Yes. As restored species they would be protected by man and then have a shot at continued existence in the event humans die off or evolve passed the necessity for a biosphere.

Your logic seems to be that it's unethical to bring them into a world that they can't survive in. But they all endured the waxing and waning of ice ages before that. The current thinking is that either humans or some sudden climate catastrophe caused the Holocene megafaunal extinctions, and not an inability to adapt to post ice age climate conditions. The only thing that seems to be preventing most of these species from thriving today is humans themselves.

Eh? Teaching evolution in a *science* class is now controlling other people's thoughts? The whole reason this is an issue is because hardcore theists want to prevent it from being taught because they think it conflicts with one cultures interpretation of a creation story. Is that not attempting to control people's thoughts?