In light of this discovery, it seems more and more likely that we will eventually have the ability to bring back the woolly mammoth. Assuming that this happens, and given the fact that it seems like human activity played a significant role in the mammoth’s extinction, should we reintroduce them in Siberia and Alaska? As the article points out, a mammoth colony existed in Russia as recently as 5,000 years ago, a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things. As a benefit, I could see mammoths eventually offering another food source for endangered alpha predators like wolves and bears. The species they would compete with like caribou are plentiful and in no danger of extinction. Are there compelling reasons not to do this? I know we tend to have an aversion to playing god, but this seems like a good chance to undo the work of some of our more destructive tendencies. How would people feel about reintroducing the mammoth or other species that we are resonsible for making extinct?
They can’t even be sure of results when they clone a sheep. I think it will be a long, long time before a mammoth can be cloned from frozen cell samples.
Well…I think the technology is pretty far away at this point, at least from what I’ve read. Even if we could do it today I’d say…no. Except for experimental purposes, or perhaps in carefully monitored and controlled environments (like a zoo).
Whether you think humans are the cause or we are simply in a period of greater warming (or some combination of both of those), the fact is the world’s climate IS changing…and its getting hotter. I don’t think that there will be much of a viable environment for the cold weather animals we currently HAVE, without introducing an extinct one to the list. It would be pretty silly to introduce a species that was previous extinct (at a huge cost no doubt) only to see it go extinct again as the climate continues to get warmer…right?
-XT
The eco-systems of the arctic and tundra have been developing for 5k years without mammoths, I imagine that reintroducing them could have a lot of unforeseen consequences. We have enough trouble with artificially introduced species now without summoning up new ones from beyond the grave.
But I wouldn’t have a problem with raising them in zoos for novelty and scientific value, or even raising them as livestock. I sorta like the idea of Mammoth products: If they get this to work, I’ll be the guy riding around on a mammoth, wearing mammoth fur clothing and a mammoth ivory scepter in one hand and a mammoth meat burger in the other.
I have a real hard time seeing bears and wolves killing mammoths. Do you know just how bg they are?
Did anything prey on mammoths during the Pleistocene?
That’s what I was thinking.
Maybe we’ll teach the wolves to use small handguns.
Pleistocene poachers, of course.
Or clone some dire wolves, cave bears and sabertooth tigers.
Well, fossils of mammoths have been found with arrowheads in them. That, of course, indicates that they were hunted by humans. How common that was is still a matter for debate.
Actually, the mammoths died out beause of Global Cooling-the longer and colder winters made their survival in the tundras impossible.
Pawguns
Agreed.
Ranchers have enough trouble with reintroduced wolves killing cattle than something larger than Willie tearing down their barn for a snack.
Do be carefull.
I understand the arguments against it.
However, it would be so damned cool!
Bears and wolves aren’t endangered species. In certain areas wolf populations are in trouble, but in general the wolf population in North America is very healthy and nowhere near danger of extinction. The wolf and the brown bear are both ranked as “least concern” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Least concern is right below “domesticated” on their categories and a species is classified as least concern when their populations have been given a full assessment and researches have found that they don’t qualify as threatened or near threatened (both of which are steps above endangered.)
Maybe, but thats not quite what I meant. Wolves are being reintroduced into ecosystems where the other native creatures evolved to deal with them, they aren’t really" artificial", since up till very recently, they were part of those ecosystems (if anything, the cattle are the invasive species).
Mammoths, on the other hand, died out long enough ago that the ecosystem they were suited for (and was suited for their presences) is long sense gone. As noted, most of their natural predators have gone the way of the, err…mammoth.
So I meant artifically introduced in the sense of killer bees or cane toads, not reintroduced wolves. I probably should’ve chosen a better word.
Coolness factor outweighs environmental consequences. I say do it immediately.
I want to know what they taste like so I vote yes.
Yes, yes we should. Because what’s the point of developing god-like powers of science if not to use them in occasionally reckless ways?
If global warming works out the way I intend, we’ll have a fresh new unpopulated and still chilly continent on which we can let loose our experiments.
Seriously - I imagine the cost and complexity of creating one (much less a stable population) would be high enough that it’d be a long time before we worry about introducing them to the wild. Heck, just stick them in Canada until we decide if they’re safe or not.
Cite?
There are several theories about the cause of the Pleistocene extinction, but the prevailing one (I think) is that humans killed off all the megafauna – either directly by hunting them or indirectly by taking over their food sources.