7 ms·

The people who want to revive the woolly mammoth want to release them into the Siberian Steppe to restore grassland to fix carbon into the earth. - https://e36

The people who want to revive the woolly mammoth want to release them into the Siberian Steppe to restore grassland to fix carbon into the earth. - https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_for_de-extinction_why_we_should_bring_back_the_woolly_mammoth https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_for_de-extinction_wh...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
I mentioned that, but I think that's a pitch to get investors into a project that actually started because they read Jurassic Park and got the wrong message. It's a classic solution in search of a problem.
- tw04 2y ago
  The problem is Siberia releasing carbon, that’s pretty clearly and well defined. I don’t know what other “more efficient” solution we could possibly have. Sometimes nature is the best solution to the problem. It’s no different than reintroducing beavers into areas to reduce wildfires. Nothing we’ve invented so far is a better option. https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/19/fighting-wildland-fire-with-beavers-colorado/ https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/19/fighting-wildland-fire-wi...
  - lolinder 2y ago
    No one looked at siberia's carbon emissions and said "let's revive the mammoth to solve that problem". They started with the mammoth resurrection program and then found a justification for it. That doesn't mean the justification that they found is necessarily invalid, but the reason why solutions in search of a problem are problematic is that the chosen solution is rarely the optimal one because it wasn't designed for the problem—the problem was designed for the solution.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      What a weak, by-side-effect argument. You present no evidence it won't work, but you oppose it because you think the method might be... sub-optimal? Maybe? Ironically it sounds like you started with opposition to this project (I blame Jurassic Park) and then worked backwards in search of a justification for your opinion.
      - sobellian 2y ago
        The giant problem leaping out at me is, what evidence do we have that mammoths could even survive in the wild today, let alone thrive to the extent necessary to change the ecology? They went extinct, after all.
        jjk166 2y ago
        If we knew the answer ahead of time, there would be no point in doing the experiment. One can easily argue that Mammoths ought to be able to survive - they survived periods with climates similar to our current one and there are a lot fewer paleolithic hunters running about now. But we won't really know unless we try.
        schiffern 2y ago
        >a lot fewer paleolithic hunters Modern poachers with modern technology beat paleolithic hunters, hands down. Technology works, as it turns out... :D
        jjk166 2y ago
        Poachers aren't part of the natural environment. When people say "survive in the wild" they are typically referring to the case where the species' and its natural habitat are largely left alone by modern civilization. Any species could be wiped out if humans tried to do so, even humans. Anyways, in this scenario we have the means of producing mammoths at will, so why would there be a market for mammoth poaching? If people do kill a mammoth, just add another mammoth. Technology works.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Let's be realistic though, if wooly mammoths we're released in Siberia, the first thing millions of trophy hunters would do is flock to Siberia and shoot them all.
- animal_spirits 2y ago
  Yeah, but this is far from putting them "in a cage". Watching the documentary on the lead of this, Stewart Brand, it is clear his goal is to build the technology to prevent species extinction and to re-introduce animals that have already been extinct. The parts about climate change are a justification for pursuing woolly mammoths specifically. - https://www.weareasgods.film https://www.weareasgods.film
thayne 2y ago
That sounds like a justification for something they want to do for other reasons (like attracting funding).
- bondarchuk 2y ago
  If it works it works and the original motivations don't really matter then. Now whether it would actually work is something else ofc.
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    well that's why I'm skeptical too, what are the odds that a big vanity project just happens to also be a great climate change fix? They also want to resurrect the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. It's hard enough to find climate solutions that work when you're motivated by that, when you're motivated by "doing cool stuff" you might stumble onto a solution, but the odds do seem rather low. They would be trying to resurrect the mammoth either way, so it's not like there's any real incentive to actually research whether it will work.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > It's hard enough to find climate solutions that work when you're motivated by that, when you're motivated by "doing cool stuff" you might stumble onto a solution, but the odds do seem rather low. Yes, it is critical to not let your focus split, and always stay true to the most important goal. If you're a robot. "Doing cool stuff" is one of the major, most basic drives behind progress of science and technology. Definitely more honest than "doing it for the money" or "doing it for social status", where you can always find ways to cheat if the going gets annoying. "Doing cool stuff" is up there with "doing it to save ourselves from an imminent, lethal threat" - the other highly reliable motivator that has little tolerance for bullshit, and was responsible for most of the rapid progress thorough history. Of the two, I'd prefer the one that doesn't involve violence and fear of death. It's probably more sustainable, too. See also: something something Feynman on having fun in research. Consider also: Most progress happens in small increments; the set of people motivated by wanting to solve climate is small, so it doesn't really hurt to also add the people motivated by doing cool shit in parallel. The chance of getting critical increment doubles; the chance of any one in any of the two groups having the full solution is ~zero.
DimuP 2y ago
At least that would be useful
anyonecancode 2y ago
I'm skeptical that would work. Animals aren't robots; their behavior isn't just programmed in to their DNA. Absent adult mammoths to teach the newly "revived" mammoth how to be a mammoth, I doubt it simply releasing them onto the steppe would work. Very likely, the mammoth would die. So then this becomes an exercise in cruelty, bringing a creature to life only for it to suffer a painful, short existence. Reminds me of Frankenstein, honestly.
- josefx 2y ago
  If only there was some kind of way to raise and train animals. Next thing you know people will try to harness fire and lightning, madness!
  - anyonecancode 2y ago
    Is there a real-world example of raising an animal from birth, with no contact with any others of its kind, being released into the wild and successfully living there?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/bringing-back-a-bird-from-the-brink-of-extinction-2-250936/ https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/bringing-back-a-bird-f...
jandrese 2y ago
What's wrong with the elk that are already there? Is there something about the mammoth that makes them better at fixing carbon?
seanhunter 2y ago
Well I had dinner with Ben Lamm[1] and he was very open in saying that for him the whole project was about setting up a big zoo attraction and charging people a bunch of money to come and see the mammoths. [1] Co-founder of colossal, the company that is attempting the mammoth de-extinction.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

I mentioned that, but I think that's a pitch to get investors into a project that actually started because they read Jurassic Park and got the wrong message. It's a classic solution in search of a problem.

tw04 2y ago
The problem is Siberia releasing carbon, that’s pretty clearly and well defined. I don’t know what other “more efficient” solution we could possibly have. Sometimes nature is the best solution to the problem. It’s no different than reintroducing beavers into areas to reduce wildfires. Nothing we’ve invented so far is a better option. https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/19/fighting-wildland-fire-with-beavers-colorado/ https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/19/fighting-wildland-fire-wi...
- lolinder 2y ago
  No one looked at siberia's carbon emissions and said "let's revive the mammoth to solve that problem". They started with the mammoth resurrection program and then found a justification for it. That doesn't mean the justification that they found is necessarily invalid, but the reason why solutions in search of a problem are problematic is that the chosen solution is rarely the optimal one because it wasn't designed for the problem—the problem was designed for the solution.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    What a weak, by-side-effect argument. You present no evidence it won't work, but you oppose it because you think the method might be... sub-optimal? Maybe? Ironically it sounds like you started with opposition to this project (I blame Jurassic Park) and then worked backwards in search of a justification for your opinion.
    - sobellian 2y ago
      The giant problem leaping out at me is, what evidence do we have that mammoths could even survive in the wild today, let alone thrive to the extent necessary to change the ecology? They went extinct, after all.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        If we knew the answer ahead of time, there would be no point in doing the experiment. One can easily argue that Mammoths ought to be able to survive - they survived periods with climates similar to our current one and there are a lot fewer paleolithic hunters running about now. But we won't really know unless we try.
        schiffern 2y ago
        >a lot fewer paleolithic hunters Modern poachers with modern technology beat paleolithic hunters, hands down. Technology works, as it turns out... :D
        jjk166 2y ago
        Poachers aren't part of the natural environment. When people say "survive in the wild" they are typically referring to the case where the species' and its natural habitat are largely left alone by modern civilization. Any species could be wiped out if humans tried to do so, even humans. Anyways, in this scenario we have the means of producing mammoths at will, so why would there be a market for mammoth poaching? If people do kill a mammoth, just add another mammoth. Technology works.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Let's be realistic though, if wooly mammoths we're released in Siberia, the first thing millions of trophy hunters would do is flock to Siberia and shoot them all.
animal_spirits 2y ago
Yeah, but this is far from putting them "in a cage". Watching the documentary on the lead of this, Stewart Brand, it is clear his goal is to build the technology to prevent species extinction and to re-introduce animals that have already been extinct. The parts about climate change are a justification for pursuing woolly mammoths specifically. - https://www.weareasgods.film https://www.weareasgods.film

thayne 2y ago

That sounds like a justification for something they want to do for other reasons (like attracting funding).

bondarchuk 2y ago
If it works it works and the original motivations don't really matter then. Now whether it would actually work is something else ofc.
- roywiggins 2y ago
  well that's why I'm skeptical too, what are the odds that a big vanity project just happens to also be a great climate change fix? They also want to resurrect the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. It's hard enough to find climate solutions that work when you're motivated by that, when you're motivated by "doing cool stuff" you might stumble onto a solution, but the odds do seem rather low. They would be trying to resurrect the mammoth either way, so it's not like there's any real incentive to actually research whether it will work.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > It's hard enough to find climate solutions that work when you're motivated by that, when you're motivated by "doing cool stuff" you might stumble onto a solution, but the odds do seem rather low. Yes, it is critical to not let your focus split, and always stay true to the most important goal. If you're a robot. "Doing cool stuff" is one of the major, most basic drives behind progress of science and technology. Definitely more honest than "doing it for the money" or "doing it for social status", where you can always find ways to cheat if the going gets annoying. "Doing cool stuff" is up there with "doing it to save ourselves from an imminent, lethal threat" - the other highly reliable motivator that has little tolerance for bullshit, and was responsible for most of the rapid progress thorough history. Of the two, I'd prefer the one that doesn't involve violence and fear of death. It's probably more sustainable, too. See also: something something Feynman on having fun in research. Consider also: Most progress happens in small increments; the set of people motivated by wanting to solve climate is small, so it doesn't really hurt to also add the people motivated by doing cool shit in parallel. The chance of getting critical increment doubles; the chance of any one in any of the two groups having the full solution is ~zero.

DimuP 2y ago

At least that would be useful

anyonecancode 2y ago

I'm skeptical that would work. Animals aren't robots; their behavior isn't just programmed in to their DNA. Absent adult mammoths to teach the newly "revived" mammoth how to be a mammoth, I doubt it simply releasing them onto the steppe would work. Very likely, the mammoth would die. So then this becomes an exercise in cruelty, bringing a creature to life only for it to suffer a painful, short existence. Reminds me of Frankenstein, honestly.

josefx 2y ago
If only there was some kind of way to raise and train animals. Next thing you know people will try to harness fire and lightning, madness!
- anyonecancode 2y ago
  Is there a real-world example of raising an animal from birth, with no contact with any others of its kind, being released into the wild and successfully living there?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/bringing-back-a-bird-from-the-brink-of-extinction-2-250936/ https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/bringing-back-a-bird-f...

jandrese 2y ago

What's wrong with the elk that are already there? Is there something about the mammoth that makes them better at fixing carbon?

seanhunter 2y ago

Well I had dinner with Ben Lamm[1] and he was very open in saying that for him the whole project was about setting up a big zoo attraction and charging people a bunch of money to come and see the mammoths. [1] Co-founder of colossal, the company that is attempting the mammoth de-extinction.