# data[].attributes.body
I think people should bring back the dinosaurs because

# data[].attributes.body
If people brought back The dinosaurs we would possibly be able to cure diseases such as stage for cancer.

Researchers examining the bones of a 72million-year-old dinosaur have discovered the creature had the ability to recover from serious illness and even heal broken bones.

Experts have been examining the fossilised remains of a 26ft high gorgosaurus which roamed North America before its death.

The researchers have found that dinosaur suffered several injuries in the months before its eventual death which would have been fatal for humans or mammals.

Experts believe that studying dinosaur descendents such as alligators and crocodiles could provide cures for human illnesses ranging from bacterial infections to cancer.

# data[].attributes.body
We would have a lot more livestock as well.

When you mention livestock you think of creatures such as cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and so on. We've been domesticating animals for like 17,000 years or so and have used them for a variety of means: meat, skins, labor and so on. But would something like this be possible with dinosaurs instead of the mammals we have?

Of course, dairy's not an option with reptiles and using feathers from dinosaurs in lieu of wool from sheep will make the textile industry an interesting one. I'll buy that a nomadic lifestyle would be possible (ie, following the herds), but could a society like ours work with dinosaurs as livestock? I'm looking at all the various species of dinosaur which have actually existed, so no new species have evolved (but they can breathe the same air we do, eat the vegetation that grows here and are able to exist on the same world that we live on now).

And for the sake of the answer, nasty carnivores can be seen as a non-issue (they're either chased off, exterminated or somehow domesticated).

# data[].attributes.body
And we were also be able to know a lot more about the world that was a hundred million years ago.

IF you could visit Earth as it was 100 million years ago, you wouldn't recognize it. At that time our now-temperate planet was a hothouse world of dense jungle and Sahara-like desert overrun by dinosaurs. This period, the Cretaceous, has long fascinated scientist and layman alike. For Eric J. Barron the lure of this distant age is its dramatically different weather. Dr. Barron, a geophysicist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has conducted the first quantitative studies of the Cretaceous climate. In particular, he has been exploring the relationship between the geography and the climate of this unusual period.

The geography of the Cretaceous is scarcely recognizable to today's observer. The majestic Himalayas had yet to form. The rugged Rockies consisted of hills and active volcanoes. Even the outline of the continents was unfamiliar. Because the slow but inexorable process of continental drift has had considerable effect in the intervening eons, land masses then were in different, generally more equatorial positions. South America and Africa were joined. The oceans were higher, so large parts of North America, Africa, and Europe were submerged.

Geologists have proposed that the altered position and topography of the continents account for the sweltering Cretaceous climate. With lower elevations and less land in northern regions to accumulate snow and ice, the entire globe should have been warmer, the argument goes. But a lingering question has been whether these geographic differences fully explain such a radical climatic departure. During this era, the general measure of climate appears to have been over 10 degrees F. hotter than now. This means, for example, that the weather in Greenland was Floridian, as attested by alligator-like fossils unearthed there. Evidence also suggests that the deep oceans were then about 20 degrees F. warmer than today. At the poles, no evidence of permanent icecaps has been found.

# data[].attributes.body
Fun fact this dog has a watermelon on its head