julianm Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 There is an interesting, if a bit too lengthy, article in the New York Times about de-extinction. What do you think about it? I feel that the idea involves a lot of hard work that carries some risks and costs, and it is also mis-sold - the cloned creatures will not be the same thing as the extinct ones. But there seems to be a passionate group of advocates, and if they are keen to work on such a projects, then why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 To what end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Why be against? What are the cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I think we should but be prepared to deal with mega fauna if you release them back into their natural habitats. Can you imagine Colombian mammoths roaming the mid west? Woolly rhinos? Giant ground sloths, better be prepared to have a a few human deaths associated with them... I think neanderthals would be the most interesting... The best ones are forever out of our reach, glyptodonts, and a few others but we are responsible for the extinction of some of these unique gene pools, i don't think refilling a few of them is completely crazy, mammoths might fit in Alaska, give the grizzlies and bigfoot something to fear... There are other animals slowly becoming extinct we should concentrate on saving as well, it's a complex issue for sure... Hmmm mammoth steaks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Why be against? What are the cons? Getting trapped in a park with them and being chased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Getting trapped in a park with them and being chased. Meh, thats your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) You think geese make a mess on a car when they fly over? Imagine a few of Argentavis magnificens landing one on your freshly polished ride. Not to mention carrying off toddlers for brunch. With a 23 foot wingspan and the wing loading of an ultralight, they could probably carry off a smaller adult human if they were feeling peckish. Edited February 28, 2014 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ivory billed woodpecker. American cheetah - pronghorns need their predator back. Baby steps first - the American chestnut rescue is actually coming along, with good odds, although the details of the means reveal the state of the art (they've put wheat genes in for fungus resistance, despite the extra risks and uncertainties, because the natural chestnut tree fungus resistance developed by the Asian species is too complicated to handle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think the technology is important, because we are on the verge of making many animals extinct, and if we find we need some of them back to guarantee a viable niche, we need to be able to do it. However, I think it would be irresponsible to bring back a mammoth, a one-of animal similar to an elephant that probably depends on a herd, then to keep in a zoo or other poor habitat. I think that would be cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think the technology is important, because we are on the verge of making many animals extinct, and if we find we need some of them back to guarantee a viable niche, we need to be able to do it. However, I think it would be irresponsible to bring back a mammoth, a one-of animal similar to an elephant that probably depends on a herd, then to keep in a zoo or other poor habitat. I think that would be cruel. I agree, such a move would be an all or nothing move, if you can't provide the habitat and numbers needed at least eventually it seems a bit cruel although different species of elephants to heard together and neanderthals were probably human enough to pass in a crowd if they were dressed as human although they would be powerfully built men with arms as big as a humans leg muscles. Ground sloths would probably be a bit less cranky and there is evidence they were kept penned up by early man in SA. Things like cave lions and or sabertooth cats probably will never be gene sequenced since we simply don't have the DNA on these species. But some of these "rewilders" suggest transplanting African animals to fill in the gaps in the ecosystem or maybe even Siberian tigers. I think that is fool hardy as best due to transmitted diseases if nothing else... but it would be interesting to see how kodiak bears compete with siberian tigers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 All for it, but only after we have stopped the current human induced mass extinction of species we have not yet even recognised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why be against? What are the cons? Why be for? what are the benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why be for? what are the benefits? supposedlythe ecosystem suffers from not having these animals in it, I think that is highly debatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Indeed, the fact is these animals died out through evolutionary pressures, the details of which are immaterial, but those same pressures would, probably, persist even with our intervention. The costs of trying to preserve the world as it now stands, is enormous and, it would seem, futile; so why create more, demonstrably unsuitable, animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Indeed, the fact is these animals died out through evolutionary pressures, the details of which are immaterial, but those same pressures would, probably, persist even with our intervention. The costs of trying to preserve the world as it now stands, is enormous and, it would seem, futile; so why create more, demonstrably unsuitable, animals? the idea that many of these animals were pushed over the edge at least by humans is the point in we should bring them back. As you point out it would be enormously expensive and be quite a bother if nothing else. The idea of mega fauna walking around in your back yards is bound to be unpopular after a few human deaths by mega fauna... the spreading of current dangerous fauna into areas where they have been absent for centuries has already caused quite a bit of problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 i would be interested in how one of these beasts handles the evolutionary gap in microbiology. we may bring a mammoth back only to watch it die of a modern cold or infection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why would it be a problem? Most pathogens are very specific, as too it’s victims; most likely, the pathogen has evolved way past that of an extinct animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 my point is that we do not know what will happen. there is no proof that they would not be affected unless we actually did such a thing and found out. what if we accidentally brought back a retro virus and reintroduced it to the ecosystem. remember that the wooly mammoth did not die out that long ago. my main question would be whether or not we can actually prove why they are extinct or are we assumming that we probably know. extinction of a species can be dependant on more than one variable in an environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 my point is that we do not know what will happen. there is no proof that they would not be affected unless we actually did such a thing and found out. what if we accidentally brought back a retro virus and reintroduced it to the ecosystem. remember that the wooly mammoth did not die out that long ago. my main question would be whether or not we can actually prove why they are extinct or are we assumming that we probably know. extinction of a species can be dependant on more than one variable in an environment. Umm, we killed them all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Of course there’s no proof, but that’s not a reason to try. This argument sounds a lot like the argument to not try GM food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Of course there’s no proof, but that’s not a reason to try. This argument sounds a lot like the argument to not try GM food. I think there is considerable proof we killed them all or at least destabilized the population at a time of environmental change that pushed them over the edge, mammoths and mastodons anyway not sure about the others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone park,with great success. We should study this case history to learn from it what we can, and carefully reintroduce species we have killed off into the environment. The opportunity for unintended consequences is very large; it occurred in Yellowstone, but was, as far as known, for the good of the park and its biosphere. However, it could have been a disaster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 There is an interesting, if a bit too lengthy, article in the New York Times about de-extinction. What do you think about it? I feel that the idea involves a lot of hard work that carries some risks and costs, and it is also mis-sold - the cloned creatures will not be the same thing as the extinct ones. But there seems to be a passionate group of advocates, and if they are keen to work on such a projects, then why not? Sure; sounds good to me. With unemployment nagging at us we could use a lot of hard work. And after all, just being alive carries lots of risks and costs so that's nothing new. As to the mammoths, we could charge people to see them, we could train them to do work -maybe- as we do elephants, charge people to hunt/cull them, eat the meat [pet food?], tan the hides and make belts, purses, boots, and such, sell insurance for when they run amok, make TV programs about all the preceding, and otherwise utilize them as we do extant creatures. And who wouldn't want the chance to strangle an Auk again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone park,with great success. We should study this case history to learn from it what we can, and carefully reintroduce species we have killed off into the environment. The opportunity for unintended consequences is very large; it occurred in Yellowstone, but was, as far as known, for the good of the park and its biosphere. However, it could have been a disaster. Locally and all up and down the east coast there is an influx of coyotes, they are killing pets and domestic animals, they were reintroduced to help keep down the deer population but pets are easier to catch... in a few places cougars are causing problems, out west they have killed several people in recent years, and bears are at an all time high and black bears are more likely to kill you than grizzlies... Their have been some interesting consequences of the genetic bottle neck deer went through about 50 years ago in my old tromping ground, resulting in lots of albino, lecucistic, other weird colored deer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Locally and all up and down the east coast there is an influx of coyotes, they are killing pets and domestic animals, they were reintroduced to help keep down the deer population Whoa, wait minute - somebody introduced coyotes on purpose, to be obediantly useful denizons of the landscape and benefit the ecosystem in some limited and predetermined manner? I'm, uh, I'm - what to say - wishing I'd been there. I was there when some weatlhy environmentailsts introduced wild turkeys to a couple of islands and nearby shores of Lake Minnetonka. On the fly-swallow principle of hominid problem solving that has provided their conspecifics with so many good stories over the years, note that wolves were traditionally the ecological curb on coyotes. Some rules of thumb: for our first few revivals of the romantically extinct, let's limit our ambitions to 1) small to midsized, about the size of a breadbox 2) low r 3) diurnal 4) not as smart as we are. Twelve foot tall hairy ass elephants with D-9 weaponry adapted to dealing with shortfaced bears, dire wolves, American lions etc, fail on 1 and 4; coyotes of course no freaking way. Edited March 2, 2014 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now