5 ms·

It’s more than that. They also say: “Both Asian and African elephants, which Colossal plans to use as surrogates to grow mammoth calves, are endangered, and ev

It’s more than that. They also say: “Both Asian and African elephants, which Colossal plans to use as surrogates to grow mammoth calves, are endangered, and every elephant gestating a "mammoth" calf can't grow babies of its own. "That's going to reduce population size," Lynch said.“ We risk putting existing endangered species at more risk to try to bring back these past species.

xhevahir 2y ago
Well, it's not as if the surrogacy would continue indefinitely, putting a continuous strain on elephant reproduction. They would need surrogates only long enough to establish a breeding mammoth population, and there's even the possibility that, should elephants get even nearer extinction, future mammoths could return the favor, so to speak, by performing as surrogates themselves. If, as I've been told, grasslands are a better carbon sink than taiga, and mammoths are capable of converting the latter into the former, I'm hopeful for efforts like this.
hparadiz 2y ago
The range of the Mammoth currently includes massive chunks of Alaska, Canada, and Russia where few people live. They might thrive in that environment much more so than the Asian and African elephants we have alive today. Maybe would even give them more breeding partners in the long term.
anon84873628 2y ago
>We risk putting existing endangered species at more risk to try to bring back these past species. Well, if the currently endangered species go extinct, we'll have the technology to bring them back too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tim333 2y ago
The elephant population is about 500,000. Using one or two as surrogates isn't going to change things much in itself. It's humans multiplying and taking their land which is more the issue.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  They just need one or two surrogates? The scope described in the article made it seem MUCH larger.
pvaldes 2y ago
Other way to see it is that we would be raising the number of protected elephants on captivity by +1.
JoeAltmaier 2y ago
That's interesting! If we value an existing species over one forth millenia gone, then that would be a negative. Quite a lot of discussion possible there. For instance, existing elephants are already obnoxious destructive animals to have roaming a landscape inhabited by people. It's only fair to include that in the analysis. All part of the equation. Somebody wanted to reintroduce wolves to Iowa but that got squashed by popular objection. Everyone would have been at risk.
- patall 2y ago
  Aren't the wolves in Iowa a bad example since that in fact should reduce risk to the general population? I mean, there are studies that predators reduce traffic collisions with deer due to making those more wary, which far outweighs any real danger imposed by wolves themselves. Hence, as always, looking at the whole picture is necessary to get a full view of what is at stake. And popular objection is not a good argument for that at all times.
  - cma 2y ago
    How many deer collisions or caused accidents are fatal for people? I see an estimate of 150 a year for the whole US. Broken radiator vs eaten by a wolf I can see the objections. There are probably bigger risks from large deer populations, like Lyme disease, but also other ways of reducing deer populations. And are there other ways of spooking them if that's all it takes to make them more wary of automobiles?
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      Wolves don't eat 150 people each year, so is a false dichotomy.
      - cma 2y ago
        If we introduced enough wolves throughout the nation to save all 150 people would that still hold?
shellfishgene 2y ago
I found this an weird argument. Does anyone really think we'd round up herds of wild elephants to use the females as surrogate mammoth mothers? Obviously one would use domesticated (Asian) elephants, and if there ever was a plan to raise a large number of mammoth, the elephants to support this plan would have to be bred fist, idependently of wild populations.

xhevahir 2y ago

Well, it's not as if the surrogacy would continue indefinitely, putting a continuous strain on elephant reproduction. They would need surrogates only long enough to establish a breeding mammoth population, and there's even the possibility that, should elephants get even nearer extinction, future mammoths could return the favor, so to speak, by performing as surrogates themselves. If, as I've been told, grasslands are a better carbon sink than taiga, and mammoths are capable of converting the latter into the former, I'm hopeful for efforts like this.

hparadiz 2y ago

The range of the Mammoth currently includes massive chunks of Alaska, Canada, and Russia where few people live. They might thrive in that environment much more so than the Asian and African elephants we have alive today. Maybe would even give them more breeding partners in the long term.

anon84873628 2y ago

>We risk putting existing endangered species at more risk to try to bring back these past species. Well, if the currently endangered species go extinct, we'll have the technology to bring them back too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tim333 2y ago

The elephant population is about 500,000. Using one or two as surrogates isn't going to change things much in itself. It's humans multiplying and taking their land which is more the issue.

kenjackson 2y ago
They just need one or two surrogates? The scope described in the article made it seem MUCH larger.

pvaldes 2y ago

Other way to see it is that we would be raising the number of protected elephants on captivity by +1.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago

That's interesting! If we value an existing species over one forth millenia gone, then that would be a negative. Quite a lot of discussion possible there. For instance, existing elephants are already obnoxious destructive animals to have roaming a landscape inhabited by people. It's only fair to include that in the analysis. All part of the equation. Somebody wanted to reintroduce wolves to Iowa but that got squashed by popular objection. Everyone would have been at risk.

patall 2y ago
Aren't the wolves in Iowa a bad example since that in fact should reduce risk to the general population? I mean, there are studies that predators reduce traffic collisions with deer due to making those more wary, which far outweighs any real danger imposed by wolves themselves. Hence, as always, looking at the whole picture is necessary to get a full view of what is at stake. And popular objection is not a good argument for that at all times.
- cma 2y ago
  How many deer collisions or caused accidents are fatal for people? I see an estimate of 150 a year for the whole US. Broken radiator vs eaten by a wolf I can see the objections. There are probably bigger risks from large deer populations, like Lyme disease, but also other ways of reducing deer populations. And are there other ways of spooking them if that's all it takes to make them more wary of automobiles?
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    Wolves don't eat 150 people each year, so is a false dichotomy.
    - cma 2y ago
      If we introduced enough wolves throughout the nation to save all 150 people would that still hold?

shellfishgene 2y ago

I found this an weird argument. Does anyone really think we'd round up herds of wild elephants to use the females as surrogate mammoth mothers? Obviously one would use domesticated (Asian) elephants, and if there ever was a plan to raise a large number of mammoth, the elephants to support this plan would have to be bred fist, idependently of wild populations.