5 ms·

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? Ir

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

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