Slashdot Mirror
The Mammoth Cometh: Revive & Restore Tackles De-Extinction
theodp writes "Slashdot's been following de-extinction efforts for a good 15 years. Now, in The Mammoth Cometh, this week's NY Times Magazine cover story, Nathaniel Rich writes that 'bringing extinct animals back to life is really happening — and it's going to be very, very cool. Unless it ends up being very, very bad.' Among the 'genetic rescues' being pursued by The Long Now Foundation's Revive & Restore project is The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback. And returning a flock of passenger pigeons to the planet is just the tip of the iceberg. 'We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic,' says Stewart Brand. 'One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success.' De-extinction, while no doubt thrilling ('It would certainly be cool to see a living saber-toothed cat,' Stanford's Hank Greely and Jacob Sherkow argued in Science), is disturbing to many conservation biologists who question the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared, worry about disease, and are concerned that money may be diverted from other conservation efforts."
Great idea! In the meantime, I'll gather a billionaire, a paleontologist, a paleobotanist, a mathematician and chaos theorist and an annoying granddaughter and grandson.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
It's too bad you think she's annoying, because in the meantime she grew up, and is really beautiful and seemingly really smart and interesting.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."
Don't fear the penguins
Some of the arguments against "de-extinction" (there's got to be a better term) puzzle me.
"Why go through all the trouble just to have the animal go extinct all over again?" First, perhaps we're now in a position to avoid the stupid actions that drove extinction the first time -- in the case of the passenger pigeon, and perhaps even the mammoth, over-hunting. Second, this argument would seem to apply equally to species that aren't extinct at all, but merely endangered. Whey go to any arbitrary amount of effort to protect a species, when it's likely to go extinct (eventually) no matter what we do?
"It's likely to become a new disease vector." This happens all the time anyhow. As the article points out, restoring a species that competes with current "pest" species (rodents and deer) may well reduce transmission of diseases like Lyme that are currently increasing.
I'd like to see some discussion that focuses on the differences between "de-extinction" and restoration of endangered-but-not-quite-extinct species. I'd also like to see some discussion about efforts like the American Chestnut Foundation, which is working to undo the profound damage from the early-20th-century arrival of chestnut blight in the US. Our forests have adapted to the loss of the chestnut, and its re-introduction would surely cause another ecological upheaval. Does anyone see this as a dangerous undertaking? If not, why not?
I'll get the mop.
Raptors. Every card holding NRA member will want to see raptors resurrected for that thrilling, group hunting exercise.
It may seem strange to you, but hunters tend to be one of the most conservation-oriented groups out there. They do care about the environment.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."