5 ms·
Sure; but so is pretty much anything we do with animals. Is it worse than the cattle industry? Worse than re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone? Worse than engi
by JoeAltmaier 2y ago
Sure; but so is pretty much anything we do with animals.
Is it worse than the cattle industry? Worse than re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone? Worse than engineering mosquitoes to be sterile? They all have their cost.
This cost is measured in African elephant abuse. A sound argument. The ecosystem argument, not so much as they also elaborate competently on.
Let's admit, the single reason to 'bring back' the Mammoth is, it's cool and a tremendous publicity scheme for ecological efforts. That alone, may be reason enough.
And, anything that brings in the dollars is going to happen. Argue all you want, about ecology and seed dispersal and other 'real' effects. The money a Mammoth park would bring, the imaginations stimulated and the youth inspired, could be worth it all on it's own.
- nemomarx 2y agowait what's wrong with the wolves? rewilding via wolves seems to be good for everyone except ranchers?
- eesmith 2y agoFrom this article: > Conservationists often claim that the reason to save charismatic species is that they are necessary for the sound functioning of the ecosystems that support humankind. Perhaps the most well-known of these stories is about the ecological changes wolves drove when they were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. Through some 25 peer-reviewed papers, two ecologists claimed to demonstrate that the reappearance of wolves in Yellowstone changed the behavior of elk, causing them to spend less time browsing the saplings of trees near rivers. This led to a chain of cause and effect (a trophic cascade) that affected beavers, birds, and even the flow of the river. A YouTube video on the phenomenon called “How Wolves Change Rivers” has been viewed more than 45 million times. > But other scientists were unable to replicate these findings—they discovered that the original statistics were flawed, and that human hunters likely contributed to elk population declines in Yellowstone.Ultimately, a 2019 review of the evidence by a team of researchers concluded that “the most robust science suggests trophic cascades are not evident in Yellowstone.”
- nemomarx 2y agoyeah but that's just the benefits being overstated, not a downside that I can see? and it it led to less required human hunting of elk or deer without any other effects I think that would still be beneficial in the future.
- eesmith 2y agoI'm one of those urban people with no interactions with wolves, which statistically means I agree with you. Ranchers, however, are not the only ones against wolf reintroduction. Hunters want to shoot elk or deer, and see wolves as a threat to game species. Rural land owners don't want the government telling them what they can or cannot do on their own land (ie, shoot wolves). Some think it's a waste of money, for something which isn't that important. If there were a tropic cascade as described, fewer people would think it's not worth it.
- master_crab 2y agoArguably, the only good conservation involves removing all humans forever. Given how that’s not a workable or good idea (from a self-preservation perspective) everything else is open to interpretation. (Not an argument for maximalist interpretations)
- graemep 2y agoThat also implies there is no loss from removing everything uniquely human from the world. More fundamentally, what is the goal? What do we want to maximise?
- theoreticalmal 2y agoMaximize crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
- weard_beard 2y agoBeauty.
- nkrisc 2y agoFamously subjective.
- weard_beard 2y agoIts the nearest neighbor to everyone's best interest and most interpretations are preservationist.
- card_zero 2y agoWell, is the world more beautiful with mammoths, or without? They do have lovely strawberry blonde hair.
- dullcrisp 2y agoPaper clips
- tyre 2y agoWhat is bad about engineering mosquitos to be sterile?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mionhe 2y agoLots of things eat them, so we're killing off a link in the food chain, would be the argument.
- bjelkeman-again 2y agoPossibly better than the alternatives. Like use of DDT. But everything seems to have a drawback.
- sitkack 2y agoMosquitoes bring nutrients back down the food chain, making it a food graph instead of a food tree.
- andrewflnr 2y agoIt's a silly argument IMO. There are so many mosquito species we don't care about, and so many other small insects that provide similar food, that eliminating the handful of species that literally kill humans would barely cause a blip in the food chain.
- darth_avocado 2y agoNot at all a silly argument. The human species is extremely bad at understanding the delicate balance the nature is in and extremely bad at estimating how much we know about nature. We don’t even know all the insect species that exist, yet we are comfortable telling others that they will find other similar food. It’s the kind of confidence aliens would have observing humans eating lettuce and assuming we’d be fine with grazing grass if they take all the leafy vegetables away.
- dyauspitr 2y agoWhy is the cattle industry in the same vein as reintroducing wolves?
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago"Things we do with animals" You don't want to call the Mammoth effort 'ecological', then compare it to other such animal impacts we've engineered. Like cattle.
- LinuxBender 2y agoLet's admit, the single reason to 'bring back' the Mammoth is, it's cool and a tremendous publicity scheme for ecological efforts. That alone, may be reason enough. Don't encourage them. Before we know it they will bring back dinosaurs ... some quote about "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."