From what I understand, “mammophant” is the only way to (potentially) do it right now: fill the gaps in the decayed gene sequence we have available.
Besides Pleistocene park there’s also the American Prairie Reserve.
“Much of the work relies on public crowdfunding and the park is now seeking money to fill the park with temperature sensors and light sensors. It has already installed a 35-meter high flux tower that continually monitors methane, carbon dioxide and temperature in the park’s atmosphere.”
Add a few capacitors to the flux tower, and it should be possible to send a team into the remote past to collect and bring back breeding pairs of actual wooly mammoths to colonize the steppe.
I see only upside here.
This may be the reference you are making but indeed that was the starting point of the book “Jurassic Park”. Mini-elephants.
That went well.
More fossil fuel?
This Mammoth idea isnt crazy, and it is possible. But is it feasible?
Nope, I thought I’d had an original idea. There are so few of those left, I guess.
Proboscidea Park.
Stranger
I edited the title to fix the typo (it said flight, not fight).
For those who have not read the articles posted here or watched the video, the gist of this idea is that large herds of ice-age mammals roaming the tundra stomped down the snow such that very cold temps could penetrate the ground and maintain the permafrost, while also keeping trees from getting established. In the absence of these herds, snow cover is thicker and more insulating against the coldest temps, and thus warming the ground and melting permafrost. Trees, which also evidently bring temps up, are also able to expand coverage.
What I am having trouble understanding is how the permafrost was able to stay intact between the end of the ice age (and the disappearance of these herds) and the start of the industrial revolution. The large animal herds have been gone for a few thousand years, yet the permafrost was OK until recent times?
The climate hadn’t changed. The average temp is up and rising fast now.
While I am in love with the idea of reintroducing mammoths to the world, I worry about the ethics of creating social, highly intelligent orphans, as well as the practical problems.
We don’t have miniphaunts, yet, so probably quite a while. The late puberty and very long gestation period makes them hard to breed.
I would guess not, or at least, not enough of the right kind - wooly mammoths evolved in a different biome, more nutrient-rich and varied. They were highly cold-adapted, but the primary biome they were adapted for was not the current tundra.
I am still confused. Insulators keep hot things hot, but they also keep cold things cold. And destroying the snow cover will also increase the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. The whole idea doesn’t seem to make sense.
The tundra is only snow-covered in winter, and the idea isn’t that the mammoths would destroy it, just trample it flat. So in winter, when the air is cold, the permafrost would freeze to a deeper layer.
In summer, when the top layer of the permafrost melts, there isn’t any snow anyway.
Not saying I believe in the concept, but that a less insulating snow cover would help permafrost seems sound.
Oh, right - like they’re really going to be able to generate 1.21 gigawatts of power. Nobody is going to just hand them a nuclear reactor. Get real Jackmannii!
Yeah I don’t pretend to understand all the effects either including the high albedo of snow and the cooling effect that has. My sense is that there are multiple effects in different directions but they believe that the cooling effect of the animals is greater as indicated by their temperature measurements.
Overall I am pretty skeptical about the climate change part of the project. First of all I simply doubt it will scale quickly enough. But if it does scale, you have to take into account the massive emissions of all those grazing animals. Also a successful attempt to change the terrain on such a massive scale would be a kind of geo-engineering and could have unintended consequences for the global climate.
I think their idea is best thought of as a ecosystem restoration project implemented in a limited area without any major climate implications. And from that perspective it makes a lot of sense with or without the mammoths. Why not restore a rich steppe ecosystem in parts of Siberia if we can? The mammoths and cave lions , if feasible, would be icing on the cake.
I even think we have a moral responsibility to restore species if we can, especially those who extinction may have been caused by our hunter-gather ancestors thousands of years ago. And since the tundra does such a great job of preserving dead animals, restoring species there would seem the most feasible.
Why a moral responsibility? That’s some extreme sins-of-the-forefathers stuff.
Maybe moral responsibility is too strong a term. But if there is a choice between restoring two species and one of them was made extinct by humans I would be inclined to restoring that one. Maybe you can call it a kind of poetic justice.
its has nothing to do with “sins of the fathers”, it’s about leaving the world a better place for our own children.
Then what difference does it make if a species was wiped out by humans? That’s what he was saying, that we should bring back mammoths instead of some other animal because maybe we contributed to their extinction.
The world hasn’t had a healthy ecosystem in 10,000 years, since we wiped out the megafauna. Restoring that ecosystem is one thing; restoring species that weren’t even part of that ecosystem is something else entirely.