Scientists are getting very close to bringing a few iconic species, like woolly mammoths and dodos, back from extinction. That may not be a good thing.
Step 2: supplement material with closely related extant species <- We are here
Step 3: Get an egg cell with your Frankenstein-DNA to survive and divide
Step 4: Produce a healthy baby
Step 5: Get a small population in a Zoo/Park
Step 6: have a permanent wild population in a specific area
Step 7: have enough of those areas to declare repopulation a success
Is fixating on the mammoths here first-world centrism? The article mentions 4 other species that have way better chances. Also, given how far we are from actual wild mammoths, that “it can solve climate change” argument is just wrong the way it’s been presented.
It’s not that long gone. There were still mammoths around when the pyramids were built. Plus there’s still huge swaths of tundra and taiga that they could live on, with a lot of the same plants, even if it’s quite a bit warmer.
Not advocating for restoring the mammoth, but this is a dangerous line of argument.
With climate change and ongoing mass extinctions, many current species are or will soon be in the same situation that re-introduced mammoths would be—and you could use the same argument to say that trying to preserve them is cruel so we should kill off any current species facing environmental stress.
Does anyone else feel like this is irresponsible? Like, I get it, humans have been destroying the ecosystems of endangered and extinct animals for awhile now. But the world is actively warming up. And even if this is successful, how do we create enough of them to survive and procreate without defects etc. And where the hell will they live? I just have some concerns.
Nearly every species ever has gone extinct. What you see around you are those few species that made it to the present. So, yes, on one hand it doesn’t matter. On the other hand, a new population of elephants isn’t going to affect the world and we can appreciate them.
It is likely that we humans or our ancestors were responsible for the extinction of most of the megafauna around the world, so we would only be undoing our own damage I guess.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Is fixating on the mammoths here first-world centrism? The article mentions 4 other species that have way better chances. Also, given how far we are from actual wild mammoths, that “it can solve climate change” argument is just wrong the way it’s been presented.
I hope they have put a substantial amount of thought into potential problems that could arise. (Not that it will actually be like JP)
The world they lived in is long gone along with the food they ate and the rest of their species. It seems almost cruel to bring them back.
It’s not that long gone. There were still mammoths around when the pyramids were built. Plus there’s still huge swaths of tundra and taiga that they could live on, with a lot of the same plants, even if it’s quite a bit warmer.
They were here pretty recently, their food is still here. It was cruel that we extincted them.
Nah. It’s still the same place. They died out within the time frame of completely modern humans.
Not advocating for restoring the mammoth, but this is a dangerous line of argument.
With climate change and ongoing mass extinctions, many current species are or will soon be in the same situation that re-introduced mammoths would be—and you could use the same argument to say that trying to preserve them is cruel so we should kill off any current species facing environmental stress.
#bringbackthesabretooth
There are about 2000 wild tiger left, I found this article from 2011 saying that they might be extinct in the wild by 2030.
So there might be 2000 ecological niches for smilodon to fill in 5 years. We better hurry then.
Pass…
Scientists: we know almost exactly what will happen.
I remember reading about this in 5th grade. 25 fucking years ago. I’ll believe it when I see it…
Obligatory https://youtube.com/watch?v=_oNgyUAEv0Q
Poachers. Poachers are next.
We bringing poachers to extinction?
I have an idea: Mammoth burgers
Welcome to 1000 years ago park! 🏞️ We got 🐘 🦥 but bigger!
Obligatory Jurassic Park Melodica Theme
But why? We have no iceage anymore.
Obviously for the local petting zoo
Plus, mammoth burgers
deleted by creator
So we’re talking about de-extinction at a time when 70% of the planet’s biodiversity has been lost in the last 50 years?
deleted by creator
Does anyone else feel like this is irresponsible? Like, I get it, humans have been destroying the ecosystems of endangered and extinct animals for awhile now. But the world is actively warming up. And even if this is successful, how do we create enough of them to survive and procreate without defects etc. And where the hell will they live? I just have some concerns.
Nearly every species ever has gone extinct. What you see around you are those few species that made it to the present. So, yes, on one hand it doesn’t matter. On the other hand, a new population of elephants isn’t going to affect the world and we can appreciate them.
Nope, seems cool to me.
It is likely that we humans or our ancestors were responsible for the extinction of most of the megafauna around the world, so we would only be undoing our own damage I guess.
We’d first have to undo all the damage we did to the rest of the Earth which, even if we wanted, we couldn’t do.
As far as I understand, the whole “de-extinction” thing is just a huge flex on our part.