The situation is complicated, granted, but we’re talking about science considerably more advanced, that could track the interrelations of 1,000s of characteristics. It wouldn’t be a small task, but then, there are probably 100s of biologists who’d be willing to make it their life’s work.
I guess that there are plenty of genes that have only one effect (or one primary effect). Or at least a limited number of effects. I think there would be an evolutionary problem if the mutation to a single gene caused curved teeth in one individual, and blue hair in their grandchild. “Evolution” would have a hard time selecting, because curved teeth might be very, very useful, and enhance survival. Then jump two generations and instead of those great teeth…a punk mammoth!
Good point, but I’m looking 80 years into the future. Whether we spend money on a “mammoth project” or not, many (maybe most) species will be extinct by then. It’s not an either/or situation. Sooner or later we’ll have to decide to do about bringing back extinct animals.
My point is that we need to spend the money on conserving species now - before we lose them.
To my mind it is easier, simpler and better to spend the mega bucks now buying areas to allow these endangered animals to get back from the brink… than it is to spend millions on a project that might allow us to bring back an already lost species… when we could have saved endangered species from becoming extinct using the money from the aforementioned project.
It might not work - in fact I have a strong feeling it won’t - then what do we do? Look back and say to ourselves “oops”.
There is only so much research money to be had - let’s not spend it on glitter & promises when the hairy nosed wombat just needs some land.
In the past, prior to the “invention” of people, things happened (like big rocks or big balls of ice falling at high velocity or etc.) that exterminated large percentages of all life on this planet. Despite those mass extinctions, some survived through it all to fill in (though it took millions of years) the various “niches” that were opened up and the new ones that were available.
Since Cecil has been on a “roll” of late with the questions related to roaches, you might note that those little multi-legged vermin have been around over 300 million years and through a large mass extinction. They’ll probably still be around in another 100 million years after people have joined the ranks of the extinct.
When it is suggested to spend money on “saving” something from extinction or to clone up something that is already extinct, you have to ask some questions. Where does the money come from? What benefit will be provided from it? What might be negitive aspects of saving something? Who decides what ought to saved (should viruses be saved? insects? fish? mammals? birds? amphibians? or etc.?), science (the real kind), government or popular opinion?
Pardon me for being selfish, but I’m just not willing to put the human race through the equivalent of a comet-caused mass extinction to help development of a really wonderful species 10,000,000 years from now.
But by that logic, also, we should purposely cause as many comets as possible to hit the earth, because it’ll accelerate evolution.
The main thing I’m concerned about is me, the human race, and all the critters and other life that’s currently here. Secondarily, I realize there are quite a few animals that would still be around today if they had just been lucky enough to live away from a trade route. Or if their feathers didn’t happen to make the headlines one year in Paris. These sorts of events don’t serve any evolutionary purpose. Unless one sees Christian Dior as a force of nature…
This is an interesting concept… But it seems to me that the only difference between this “destroyer” and a life-destroying meteor or {insert your favourite cataclysmic event here } is INTENT, or possibly CONSCIOUSNESS. Granted that human beings do not have either of these en masse, would that make ANY indescriminate large-scale killer of species anti-evolutionary?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, obviously the point has been missed. The overall idea is to practice conservation of what is still here. Which means controlling the numbers. Usually this tends to only be practiced on the “game” animals. Perhaps conservation should be extended to all parts of the flora and fauna to keep things in “balance”. It sure would open up the need for biologist to do the necessary population studies and what not.
As for those various plants or animals that are no longer here … don’t worry about it. Some people out there have a twisted view of reality, and labor under the delusions of the “Chicken Little” thought process. The fact that mammoths are extinct, by what ever process that led to it, is of no real enduring problem to the point of being a non problem. And if it is a problem, perhaps someone can devulge why it is using some real and verifiable facts.
I don’t think I missed the point… The source of this “Chicken Little” thought process is often the thought that humans are no longer part of the evolutionary process. I wish to deflate that idea because of the wellspring it provides for guilt and related motives for doing things like cloning mammoths. For instance, note the comments above to the effect that we wiped out mammoths (or your other favourite extinct species) and therefore are obligated to restore them.
I cannot be morally responsible for the effects of either my ancestors or random cataclysmic events, which are equally part of evolutionary process. I CAN be morally responsible (and more practically effective) for what I do today. I think this is the gist of your view…
Guilt isn’t part of my reasoning.
There’s a broader issue here the human race won’t able to avoid much longer, regardless of whether it’s seen as good to “bring something back”. Are you for genetic engineering? 'Cause if you are, your argument falls completely apart. Ok I’m going to genetically engineer a beast who can live in the cold and carry great loads. And I’m going to crib from nature, and as it happens, the result will look a lot like a mammoth. Now are you against it?
We get to Mars in 50 years, and have terraformed it in 250. But the sun and the atmosphere there are different, and the minerals and plants unavoidably affected. So what’s “natural” on Mars is different than Earth. In fact, it’s more like an Earth Ice Age. So what animal do might they decide is well-suited to Mars? Say it was … a mammoth.
I don’t see that people can get out of making decisions about what life is appropriate to create.
Sorry, partly_warmer- I didn’t mean to upset you… Although I would rather that we avoid genetic engineering, at least under current conditions,it’s obviously here to stay. That said, even G.E. represents an extreme in natural selection (or unnatural selection, if you prefer). Evolution continues, whatever the selecting force. Species will still continue to go to extinction, and the conditions which caused the extinctions will probably negate any attempts to bring back the past. As the old saying goes, you can never go home again…
New species will emerge, however, wherever there is a niche to be filled. This will happen whether we engineer it or not.
As to what life is appropriate to create, I can only say that life has long produced and destroyed itself without our aid, often resists even determined efforts on our part in both directions, and will continue to do so.
It’s a strange subject, isn’t it? Emotion about goals and results which we’ve only, at best, a hint at?
I don’t like genetic engineering. But yet another herd of unthinking scientists turning our natural process on its head isn’t reason for us to throw up our hands at directing their activities. Bringing a mammoth back (I imagine) is harmless compared to messing with human genes. I’d prefer they learn their lessons taking a few steps at a time, not swaggering about their power to change humanity. They can learn from something relatively innocuous, like a few mammoths.
There’s nothing benign or natural about the direction we’re heading, today. It’s like a monkey at the helm of a Ford. In an open field. Relatively safe. But not in control.
I’m with you on G.E. (ever read Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’? Should be required reading for any budding scientist.)
But then again, the world was never a benign place… and so far as I can tell, no man has ever been in control. Scary, isn’t it? (I now stop this thought on the grounds that religion and threads don’t mix well… Infer what I mean by this at your own risk…)
That’s part of what I meant about humanity having no intent or consciousness en masse. Maybe I’ll be ready for G.E. when we do, but probably not sooner. And I won’t get to see that. Oh, well…
As a follow-up, from “Attitudes Toward Cloning” in American Demographics, March 2002.
This article combines studies from several sources. The main conclusion is that the less close to nature cloning is, the more people are opposed to it. This cuts across age/sex/religious groups. The majority disapprove most of the time.
This poll from Fox/Opinion Dynamics was cited:
"Which is a morally acceptable goal for animal or human cloning?
To reproduce endangered species: 32% yes, 61% no.
To reintroduce extinct species: 23% yes, 69% no.
To reproduce a pet: 15% yes, 70% no."
Now the question is, what if the extinct species was man? The aliens would want to know.
Actually, quite a bit is known regarding the role of humans in causing the extinction of some species, particularly large mammals (megafauna). If you take a look at the work of Marvin Harris and Jared Diamond, you'll find a lot of interesting analysis of this issue. This whole issue had a very important influence on the development of human cultures.
The implications are very interesting -- Why were the Europeans able to conquer the territories of the Native Americans? Why did the Aztecs engage in massive organized cannibalism? One of the answers is the fact that unlike in Europe and Asia, where human contact with large ruminants led to domestication, in Australia and the Americas, humans hunted large mammals to extinction. (I'm skipping a lot of steps here, but Diamond and Harris are better at it than I am and they're fascinating reads as well. Look to them for details.) The megafauna were as a result unavailable as a source of protein, as a source of transportation, as a source of propulsion for agriculture and other activities, and as a source of diseases (The most effective weapon in the colonisation of the new world was, in fact, disease).
Wasn’t that human sacrifices in religious ceremonies? I’m no expert on cannibalism in the New World. I will note however that Cecil Adams has alluded to the issue in this column: Is there really such a thing as cannibalism?, in which he says
The point was, it will never be completely known as to why the mammoths are toes up in the evolutionary time line. Man may have just been the last “nail” in their coffin. The advance of ice and the length of the winters could have reduced to the available food sources for the mammoths in a severe way making their survival less than certain with or without being on man’s menu. However though, that said, there is no doubt in some instances of extinction of some species … the carrier pidgeon for example.
As for cannibalism, there seem to many reasons behind it. Religious beliefs or starvation seem to be “popular” reasons. There are quite of those starvation stories out there (Donner Party, the real story behind Moby Dick, Spanish explorers off the Texas coast on a raft, a soccer team stuck up in the mountains, etc.) But it doesn’t seem to a completely confined to humans as, according to some work done, Neanderthals indulged at least once in a while.
I also remember being told about a video where a group of Bonabo chimps “raided” a “rival” chimp group. In the ensuing “battle” one of the rivals was killed due to a blow on the head from a stick. After the attackers ran the others off they tore the dead chimp to bits and consumed the bits. I never saw it myself, so it is hearsay. But, I have seen video of a group chimps raiding another chimp group “camp”, for territorial reasons, using sticks and branches or throwing stuff to treaten those being attacked.
See, this is why you need to read Marvin Harris. There is a lot of myth and assumption surrounding cannibalism. There are also a lot of reasons for it. However, it seems that the Aztec culture was the only major civilisation that was entirely geared towards warfare for the purpose of obtaining human meat to satisfy the meat cravings of the Aztec aristocracy. To a great extent, this had to do with the fact that there was a scarcity of protein in the Aztec diet. Now, understand, Harris does not make conclusions based on moralism, superiority, or rumour. His basic assumption is that one of the biggest influences on human behaviour is the natural environment and the exploitable resources available. Harris does this a lot better than I do, and without his comprehensive explanation, it’s too easy for what I say to be misinterpreted.
Barbecued mammoth? Probably taste like barbecued elephant. Of course when they set that rack of ribs on the delivery tray on your car’s door down at Neanderthal Slim’s Pick n’ Chew drive-in, your car would likely become wheels up.
