5 ms·

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. Som

by 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.
        schiffern 2y ago
        I wish semantics worked against actual poachers. :-( >why would there be a market for mammoth poaching? You haven't met humans, I see.
        jjk166 2y ago
        I don't think you understood what I was saying. Why would there be a market for poaching an animal that is mass-bred in captivity?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    If you started at the problem and worked in the other direction, maybe there are half a dozen ideas for solutions that are cheaper and more likely to work than "engineer mammoths." Like, is the engineering project even likely to work, if it works will they actually be bred in any number, if they are will anyone be willing to let them roam free, if they roam free are they likely to survive and breed more, if they do are they likely to have a positive impact, etc.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      > maybe What is this, National Argument By Insinuation Day? :-\ I don't even have a dog in this fight one way or another, I just call out terrible and weak logical arguments when I see them. This thread is rife with bad arguments. It seems people here thought "Jurassic Park bad," then twisted themselves into knots to come up with something to complain about. Bad form guys. If you want to fool people (in a durable way that's immune to logic), write a book or movie they watch as a kid.
      - roywiggins 2y ago
        The point is that when someone comes up with an expensive vanity project with a promise that it's really about climate change, you don't have to believe them. Maybe they are coincidentally right and it will work, but they definitely seem less interested in rigorously investigating whether it will work than investigating the cool parts of engineering a mammoth.
        schiffern 2y ago
        ...and you don't have to disbelieve that it will work either. It gives you no evidence either way. "Really about" climate change is a different issue from whether or not it works. You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy (for which you clearly have no evidence, only insinuation).
        roywiggins 2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think that is a fair criticism of solutions in search of a problem. I would argue that the vast majority of technology and innovation falls into this category. The wheel and combustion engine weren't invented as a bespoke solutions for automobiles and trains. The internet wasn't invented as a platform for e-commerce. History is full of examples of technology leading the application, with curious or enterprising individuals adapting the technology to a productive use.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    History is also almost empty of positive climate change outcome. Photovoltaic might be an exemption. EV batteries is still unresolved at scale and cars are still made of tons of extracted metals and oilchemestry. They are fun and new tech sell well and oil price go up. That’s the reasons EV were invented. Branding them as green works great because it’s look plausible and we all want to have greener cars (and/or continue using them, which is correlated).
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >History is also almost empty of positive climate change outcome. What would you consider positive a climate change outcome? I think there are tons of positive outcomes, but agree there is a lot of greenwashing as well. Moving from coal to natural gas has a enormous positive outcome. PV is as well. US CO2 per capita and total emissions are down 25% in the last 20 years, which is a massive positive outcome. Global CO2 per capita has gone negative, which is another massive win. It is too soon to tell, but we may even be at or have passed global peak emissions, which will be another massive milestone.
      - aziaziazi 2y ago
        > moving from coal We didn’t, and coal consumption even double since 80’s. What we did is add oil to it and then gaz [0]. Some could argue that without oil and gaz, coal might be even higher today. In that sense gas is more a “less bad” than a good one : it did not diminish the coal consumption neither out energy need. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
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.

by tw04 2y ago

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.
        schiffern 2y ago
        I wish semantics worked against actual poachers. :-( >why would there be a market for mammoth poaching? You haven't met humans, I see.
        jjk166 2y ago
        I don't think you understood what I was saying. Why would there be a market for poaching an animal that is mass-bred in captivity?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- roywiggins 2y ago
  If you started at the problem and worked in the other direction, maybe there are half a dozen ideas for solutions that are cheaper and more likely to work than "engineer mammoths." Like, is the engineering project even likely to work, if it works will they actually be bred in any number, if they are will anyone be willing to let them roam free, if they roam free are they likely to survive and breed more, if they do are they likely to have a positive impact, etc.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    > maybe What is this, National Argument By Insinuation Day? :-\ I don't even have a dog in this fight one way or another, I just call out terrible and weak logical arguments when I see them. This thread is rife with bad arguments. It seems people here thought "Jurassic Park bad," then twisted themselves into knots to come up with something to complain about. Bad form guys. If you want to fool people (in a durable way that's immune to logic), write a book or movie they watch as a kid.
    - roywiggins 2y ago
      The point is that when someone comes up with an expensive vanity project with a promise that it's really about climate change, you don't have to believe them. Maybe they are coincidentally right and it will work, but they definitely seem less interested in rigorously investigating whether it will work than investigating the cool parts of engineering a mammoth.
      - schiffern 2y ago
        ...and you don't have to disbelieve that it will work either. It gives you no evidence either way. "Really about" climate change is a different issue from whether or not it works. You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy (for which you clearly have no evidence, only insinuation).
        roywiggins 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think that is a fair criticism of solutions in search of a problem. I would argue that the vast majority of technology and innovation falls into this category. The wheel and combustion engine weren't invented as a bespoke solutions for automobiles and trains. The internet wasn't invented as a platform for e-commerce. History is full of examples of technology leading the application, with curious or enterprising individuals adapting the technology to a productive use.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  History is also almost empty of positive climate change outcome. Photovoltaic might be an exemption. EV batteries is still unresolved at scale and cars are still made of tons of extracted metals and oilchemestry. They are fun and new tech sell well and oil price go up. That’s the reasons EV were invented. Branding them as green works great because it’s look plausible and we all want to have greener cars (and/or continue using them, which is correlated).
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >History is also almost empty of positive climate change outcome. What would you consider positive a climate change outcome? I think there are tons of positive outcomes, but agree there is a lot of greenwashing as well. Moving from coal to natural gas has a enormous positive outcome. PV is as well. US CO2 per capita and total emissions are down 25% in the last 20 years, which is a massive positive outcome. Global CO2 per capita has gone negative, which is another massive win. It is too soon to tell, but we may even be at or have passed global peak emissions, which will be another massive milestone.
    - aziaziazi 2y ago
      > moving from coal We didn’t, and coal consumption even double since 80’s. What we did is add oil to it and then gaz [0]. Some could argue that without oil and gaz, coal might be even higher today. In that sense gas is more a “less bad” than a good one : it did not diminish the coal consumption neither out energy need. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

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.