3 ms·

Further into the article, there's a section dedicated to the main objections ("Unintended consequences"). > For one, de-extinct animals may be sickly, given th

Further into the article, there's a section dedicated to the main objections ("Unintended consequences"). > For one, de-extinct animals may be sickly, given that the pool of available DNA for each species is relatively small. > It's also worth considering who would be liable if large-scale mammoth reintroductions went wrong. > Reintroductions can lead to clashes between humans and wildlife. > The makeup of the reintroduced population matters too > There's also no guarantee that animals will stay where we release them I have the impression that while each single point may be unlikely, there are (too) many unknowns in the project. In addition to the biological objections, there are the ideological ones, primarily: > Instead of using that money to bring back three extinct species whose ecological impact is unknown, the funds could be put toward saving roughly 100 species that are currently facing an uncertain future I agree that this is ultimately purely driven by profit: > "If they're successful — and I have no doubt that they will be — they're going to make a ton of money," he said.

anon84873628 2y ago
Yes, an underlying motivation of the project is simply to fund more biotech research. Which, if it comes to fruition as imagined in sci-fi novels, could radically upend ecosystems and societies alike, in far more dramatic ways than discussed here.
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  That cow is already out of the barn. There's precious little ecosystem left on this tired old iron ball that hasn't been radically upended. Funny how any effort to arrest the runaway catastrophe that's been caused is met with resistance that calls it 'further damage'. Like we aren't already facing tremendous risks by leaving it unchecked.
  - patall 2y ago
    In addition to that, societies and ecosystems could also upend differently if we do not develop this technology. As every technology, you can use it for good and you can use it for bad. But simple banning (or 'moratoria') do rarely stop a novel field from developing, and just end up pushing it in the less open grey zone of top secret research projects.
rikroots 2y ago
My 'gut' objection to the endeavour is that they're creating a new "genetically modified" creature without any consideration for the ecosystem which surrounded the originals. Not just the plants and animals that made up the Arctic ecosystem 10k years ago, and now, but - more importantly - the ecosystem (parasites, gut biota, etc) that used to live on/in those mammoths. The gut flora in particular will be critical if they want these Indian-elephant born mammoths to thrive in the Arctic - will the creatures even be able to digest what they eat? If we have to revive something elephant-related, then I'd much prefer them to concentrate on (one of) the Madagascan elephant bird species. The eggs alone would offer a potentially robust revenue stream for whichever God bought the beast back from the dead.
JoeAltmaier 2y ago
The good ol' False Dichotomomy, rearing it's irrelevant head. Save existing species, go right ahead. That the effort being made to do {absolutely anything else} takes money too, is no kind of argument whatsoever. The aren't exclusive activities.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  In specific instance they aren't totally independent. The plan is to use endangered elephant surrogate mothers, removing them from the breeding pool of their own already threatened population.

anon84873628 2y ago

Yes, an underlying motivation of the project is simply to fund more biotech research. Which, if it comes to fruition as imagined in sci-fi novels, could radically upend ecosystems and societies alike, in far more dramatic ways than discussed here.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago
That cow is already out of the barn. There's precious little ecosystem left on this tired old iron ball that hasn't been radically upended. Funny how any effort to arrest the runaway catastrophe that's been caused is met with resistance that calls it 'further damage'. Like we aren't already facing tremendous risks by leaving it unchecked.
- patall 2y ago
  In addition to that, societies and ecosystems could also upend differently if we do not develop this technology. As every technology, you can use it for good and you can use it for bad. But simple banning (or 'moratoria') do rarely stop a novel field from developing, and just end up pushing it in the less open grey zone of top secret research projects.

rikroots 2y ago

My 'gut' objection to the endeavour is that they're creating a new "genetically modified" creature without any consideration for the ecosystem which surrounded the originals. Not just the plants and animals that made up the Arctic ecosystem 10k years ago, and now, but - more importantly - the ecosystem (parasites, gut biota, etc) that used to live on/in those mammoths. The gut flora in particular will be critical if they want these Indian-elephant born mammoths to thrive in the Arctic - will the creatures even be able to digest what they eat? If we have to revive something elephant-related, then I'd much prefer them to concentrate on (one of) the Madagascan elephant bird species. The eggs alone would offer a potentially robust revenue stream for whichever God bought the beast back from the dead.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago

The good ol' False Dichotomomy, rearing it's irrelevant head. Save existing species, go right ahead. That the effort being made to do {absolutely anything else} takes money too, is no kind of argument whatsoever. The aren't exclusive activities.

HelloMcFly 2y ago
In specific instance they aren't totally independent. The plan is to use endangered elephant surrogate mothers, removing them from the breeding pool of their own already threatened population.