5 ms·

In my area, they've released long extinct (for the UK) long-horn cows, and it's improved the local ecosystem [1] Similarly with beavers in the UK as well. Arg

In my area, they've released long extinct (for the UK) long-horn cows, and it's improved the local ecosystem [1] Similarly with beavers in the UK as well. Arguably mammoths would likely do the same after some period of time, and I'd hope other mega-fauna we've chased, killed and eaten into extinction. [1] https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/after-year-bison-freely-roaming-canterbury-woodland-monitoring-programme-releases-first-year https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/after-year-bison-f...

lisper 2y ago
Similar story when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/ https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm 100% on board with concerted efforts to reintroduce species that already exist into habitats that they once roamed. That's a relatively low effort/high reward conservation project. I'm unconvinced that the value we expect to gain from resurrecting an extinct species is worth the overhead of doing so, compared to using those same resources to keep the species that we haven't yet killed off alive and help them thrive.
  - lisper 2y ago
    Sure. But I'm pretty sure we're not done driving species to extinction. The benefits of bringing back the quagga may not outweigh the immediate costs, but developing the ability to revive extinct species in general very well might.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      Sure, being able to revive extinct species might benefit […] only if we also become good at not driving them to extinction. This second ability is a must for the first one to be useful, and might even work alone. eg: just let the existing bisons grow new herds.
  - samatman 2y ago
    There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. That isn't how it works. Conserving megafauna and de-extincting the mammoth aren't competing with each other except in the very general sense that both are in competition with every other endeavour which is not explicitly engaged in profit seeking. But if you were to say "I'm unconvinced the value we expect to gain from preserving old computers in working condition is worth it, relative to efforts to reduce child mortality in West Africa" it would obviously be a weak argument which few would entertain. But the situation is much more like that than you make it look here.
    - HelloNurse 2y ago
      In concrete terms, woolly mammoths don't seem likely to starve endangered Siberian animals, and if they turned out to be an ecological problem (for example, they might eat important plants to an excessive degree) they would be fairly easy to capture, move and confine. In abstract terms, there is only a small difference of degree between capturing, reproducing and dispersing rare animals to increase a small population (for example, small raptors in cities as a defense against obnoxious birds); reestablishing a recently extinct population with imports from a place where an animal isn't extinct yet (for example wolves and bears in various places in central Europe); reestablishing a less recently extinct population with artificial marvels of genetic engineering (mammoths, aurochs); introducing completely foreign animals (for example rabbits in Australia, a major bad idea from a conservation point of view); introducing artificial animals that never had a population anywhere (hopefully all fiction, but for example photosynthesis would be impactful).
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. Perhaps: "The more roads you build, the fewer sidewalks"? On second thought, perhaps not, since they are a little too closely related.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      False dichotomy covers that, but is perhaps too broad. When faced with people like that, I ask them what have you done to cure cancer?
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    But the wolves released weren't the same as the ones that once roamed. The Canadian wolves were chosen because they were from a healthy population that lived in similar habitat and preyed on similar species, not because they were just dropping in the same subspecies.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Why are you assuming there is a competition for resources at play? Some people would rather spend resources developing technology to resurrect species. Why not use that technology for conservation?
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      Of course there is: money, which is arguably not infinite, neither does (unarguably) the ressources/human time you could buy with it.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        The two types of projects don't compete for the same pool of money. There's some overlap, but there's some funding that goes to specific goals on their merits, and then there's some funding that could be pulled in if the project captures someone's interest (including public). As for buying human time, happily that often comes with a big discount for work on cool stuff (a fact routinely abused by businesses in some sectors, such as game development or entertainment in general). There's also an extra discount for trustworthiness - it's much harder to fake results when the evaluation criteria include whether or not it's the cool stuff that was promised.
        aziaziazi 2y ago
        Agree. The part "that goes to specific goal" is the one at competition between parties playing for that goal.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Finite time and money doesn't mean there is competition in real practice. If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another, you have a broken model of reality. If I save $5 on beer, that doesn't mean the nature conservancy budget gets more funding. It will almost assuredly stay in my bank account or get spent on chips.
        2y ago
- BigGreenJorts 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure there was a more comprehensive study than the rivers video that showed it wasn't the wolves, but rather the fencing put up to prevent grazing that restored the forests and therefore beaver materials in Yellowstone park.
boomboomsubban 2y ago
Your source doesn't really back up your claim that it's improved the local ecosystem. It very firmly says that we'll need a few more decades to have any idea how beneficial it is. Even the various officials say things that make it sound great, but quickly turn to saying they'll need more time to reach a result.

lisper 2y ago

Similar story when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/ https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...

lolinder 2y ago
I'm 100% on board with concerted efforts to reintroduce species that already exist into habitats that they once roamed. That's a relatively low effort/high reward conservation project. I'm unconvinced that the value we expect to gain from resurrecting an extinct species is worth the overhead of doing so, compared to using those same resources to keep the species that we haven't yet killed off alive and help them thrive.
- lisper 2y ago
  Sure. But I'm pretty sure we're not done driving species to extinction. The benefits of bringing back the quagga may not outweigh the immediate costs, but developing the ability to revive extinct species in general very well might.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    Sure, being able to revive extinct species might benefit […] only if we also become good at not driving them to extinction. This second ability is a must for the first one to be useful, and might even work alone. eg: just let the existing bisons grow new herds.
- samatman 2y ago
  There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. That isn't how it works. Conserving megafauna and de-extincting the mammoth aren't competing with each other except in the very general sense that both are in competition with every other endeavour which is not explicitly engaged in profit seeking. But if you were to say "I'm unconvinced the value we expect to gain from preserving old computers in working condition is worth it, relative to efforts to reduce child mortality in West Africa" it would obviously be a weak argument which few would entertain. But the situation is much more like that than you make it look here.
  - HelloNurse 2y ago
    In concrete terms, woolly mammoths don't seem likely to starve endangered Siberian animals, and if they turned out to be an ecological problem (for example, they might eat important plants to an excessive degree) they would be fairly easy to capture, move and confine. In abstract terms, there is only a small difference of degree between capturing, reproducing and dispersing rare animals to increase a small population (for example, small raptors in cities as a defense against obnoxious birds); reestablishing a recently extinct population with imports from a place where an animal isn't extinct yet (for example wolves and bears in various places in central Europe); reestablishing a less recently extinct population with artificial marvels of genetic engineering (mammoths, aurochs); introducing completely foreign animals (for example rabbits in Australia, a major bad idea from a conservation point of view); introducing artificial animals that never had a population anywhere (hopefully all fiction, but for example photosynthesis would be impactful).
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. Perhaps: "The more roads you build, the fewer sidewalks"? On second thought, perhaps not, since they are a little too closely related.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    False dichotomy covers that, but is perhaps too broad. When faced with people like that, I ask them what have you done to cure cancer?
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  But the wolves released weren't the same as the ones that once roamed. The Canadian wolves were chosen because they were from a healthy population that lived in similar habitat and preyed on similar species, not because they were just dropping in the same subspecies.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Why are you assuming there is a competition for resources at play? Some people would rather spend resources developing technology to resurrect species. Why not use that technology for conservation?
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    Of course there is: money, which is arguably not infinite, neither does (unarguably) the ressources/human time you could buy with it.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      The two types of projects don't compete for the same pool of money. There's some overlap, but there's some funding that goes to specific goals on their merits, and then there's some funding that could be pulled in if the project captures someone's interest (including public). As for buying human time, happily that often comes with a big discount for work on cool stuff (a fact routinely abused by businesses in some sectors, such as game development or entertainment in general). There's also an extra discount for trustworthiness - it's much harder to fake results when the evaluation criteria include whether or not it's the cool stuff that was promised.
      - aziaziazi 2y ago
        Agree. The part "that goes to specific goal" is the one at competition between parties playing for that goal.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Finite time and money doesn't mean there is competition in real practice. If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another, you have a broken model of reality. If I save $5 on beer, that doesn't mean the nature conservancy budget gets more funding. It will almost assuredly stay in my bank account or get spent on chips.
      - 2y ago
BigGreenJorts 2y ago
I'm pretty sure there was a more comprehensive study than the rivers video that showed it wasn't the wolves, but rather the fencing put up to prevent grazing that restored the forests and therefore beaver materials in Yellowstone park.

boomboomsubban 2y ago

Your source doesn't really back up your claim that it's improved the local ecosystem. It very firmly says that we'll need a few more decades to have any idea how beneficial it is. Even the various officials say things that make it sound great, but quickly turn to saying they'll need more time to reach a result.