nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Woolly Mammoth resurrection - I'll believe it when I see it . . .

LordSutch

Its been talked about for years and years, then three years ago Japanese scientists declared that they will resurrect the Wolly Mammoth by 2016 (provided they can extract enough intact DNA) from a frozen Mammoth carcase frozen in the siberian permafrost.
> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/japanese-researchers-plan-resurrect-woolly-mammoth-within-five-years

If it happens in 2016-17 it will certainly be an amazing achievement, but is it ethical? should it be done, should it be allowed? is it cruel?

Is this total pie in the sky, or can you really envisage looking at a real Wolly Mammoth in a Zoo in Japan within the next few years!

I guess the last time they saw us and we saw them (about 5000 years ago) we all had a lot more hair

)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kylith

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Mammoths?

That'd solve all our problems. Bring back the mammoths and feed them to the sparrowhawks so they'll leave the ikkle birdies alone.

crockholm

kylith wrote: »

Why would we want to bring back mammoths? Where would they live? The habitat they evolved for is gone, and anywhere you put them they'll be displacing animals which have evolved to fill those various niches over the last 10,000 years. It'd be like the Sparrowhawk all over again*.

Bring back newly extinct animals, or use preserved specimens to boost the numbers and genetic diversity of endangered species, but there's no point that I can see in bringing back such a large animal from so long ago.

* In the UK there was a huge Save the Sparrowhawk campaign, which was very successful, hooray. However now they're seeing a decrease in the number of sparrows, so there's a Save the Sparrows campaign. 10 points for guessing what Sparrowhawks like to eat.

Maybe they could live somewhere in Siberia or the Kamchatkan peninsula,I think the numbers would be controlled,but it could be a starting block to bring back other more recent species,and who knows even ensure the survival of the most critically endangered species of today

The Backwards Man

So are all extinct organisms going to get the same treatment or is it just the ugly hairy ones?

[Deleted User]

The likelihood of this ever happening is incredibly remote. They barely have success with cross breeding different kinds of elephants without the offspring dying in a few days.
In addition to that they tried to bring back the Pyrenean Ibex for it only to live for a couple of minutes before dying of lung defects.

1ZRed

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So are all extinct organisms going to get the same treatment or is it just the ugly hairy ones?

Well I hope they leave subo put when she finally keels over

smash

Sacramento wrote: »

In addition to that they tried to bring back the Pyrenean Ibex for it only to live for a couple of minutes before dying of lung defects.

Did they cook it?

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

FUCK YEAH!!

kylith

crockholm wrote: »

Maybe they could live somewhere in Siberia or the Kamchatkan peninsula,I think the numbers would be controlled,but it could be a starting block to bring back other more recent species,and who knows even ensure the survival of the most critically endangered species of today

Right, so you have a tiny group of animals with practically zero genetic diversity after the first generation, leading to horrific genetic defects after a few generations, displacing the local fauna. We know nothing about how mammoths lived, whether they migrated, social structure, or anything like that. How would they be kept confined? How much space do they need? Would that habitat even be suitable for them?

I'd be delighted for scientists to get to the stage of "if we implanted this in an elephant ovum it'd grow into a mammoth*", but I don't think they should actually do it.

* Barring spontaneous abortion when the surrogate's immune system attacks the alien genetic material.

RebelSoul

smash wrote: »

There are potentially massive scientific breakthroughs to be gained from an experiment of this kind.

That's a bit obscure, even for the purpose of your argument.

Well please don't tease. Tell us about these potentially massive scientific breakthroughs.

I'll agree to disagree on the second point.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

Did they cook it?

I'm sure they gave it a good auld poke with a stick for a while after.

Antar Bolaeisk

RebelSoul wrote: »

Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

I think they're looking for volunteers to give birth to a neanderthal. So long as the volunteer is happy to go ahead with it I don't see the problem.

[Deleted User]

No problem with it whatsoever. It's a massive step forward and we could learn how to undo a lot that we've done.

1ZRed

Deleted User wrote: »

No problem with it whatsoever. It's a massive step forward and we could learn how to undo a lot that we've done.

It devalues life in one sense, though. People will care less about conservation because they think it can all be replaced sometime in future.

Unless vital to an ecosystem, I wouldn't be mad to try and bring back certain species if there's no proper habitat left for them anymore.

RebelSoul

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

I think they're looking for volunteers to give birth to a neanderthal. So long as the volunteer is happy to go ahead with it I don't see the problem.

No they are not. That was an incorrect story that went viral due to mis-translation of quotes and lazy media not checking sources.
I do agree though that if a volunteer is mentally and physically sound then that's their choice. However an elephant does not have a choice to be the host. It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

Yitzhak Rabin

RebelSoul wrote: »

No they are not. That was an incorrect story that went viral due to mis-translation of quotes and lazy media not checking sources.
I do agree though that if a volunteer is mentally and physically sound then that's their choice. However an elephant does not have a choice to be the host. It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

1ZRed

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

There is less than 5% neanderthal DNA in us, that's largely due to us splitting from the same gene pool so we have DNA in common, on either side.

There's also doubt that neanderthals interbred with us. If they were brought back they would not be homosapien or "human", as they are a different subspecies. We experiment freely on humans as it is so I see no problem doing the same to them either.

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

Utility rooms don't exist "naturally" yet my dogs are being forced to sleep in them at night.

Is this unethical?

RebelSoul

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

That's a good point. Not one I heard debated when that story about the neanderthal baby was running. Although I might have missed it. It all starts to get a little too nazi scientist for me when talk of experiments is introduced.

LordSutch

kylith wrote: »

Right, so you have a tiny group of animals with practically zero genetic diversity after the first generation, leading to horrific genetic defects after a few generations, displacing the local fauna. We know nothing about how mammoths lived, whether they migrated, social structure, or anything like that. How would they be kept confined? How much space do they need? Would that habitat even be suitable for them?

I'd be delighted for scientists to get to the stage of "if we implanted this in an elephant ovum it'd grow into a mammoth*", but I don't think they should actually do it.

* Barring spontaneous abortion when the surrogate's immune system attacks the alien genetic material.

Very interesting post that^

> > > http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/14-extinct-animals-that-could-be-resurrected/woolly-mammoth

RebelSoul

Seachmall wrote: »

Utility rooms don't exist "naturally" yet my dogs are being forced to sleep in them at night.

Is this unethical?

I noticed you deleted your previous post. But I would like to address it. My point is it would be unnatural in the course of the elephants life. Which is not the same as "defying the laws of nature" as you put it.
Technically everything on this planet can be traced back to nature.

I doubt your dogs are "forced" to sleep there. I'm sure it's an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. If they are being forced to do it against their will however than it would certainly be unpleasant for them. In that case it would be unethical.
You have raised interesting point though and not one I had deliberated on previously.

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

I doubt your dogs are "forced" to sleep there. I'm sure it's an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. If they are being forced to do it against their will however than it would certainly be unpleasant for them. In that case it would be unethical.

They are forced in the sense that they don't have an option. If they don't come home at 5 I go out and bring them in.

What I take from your response is it being "unnatural" isn't the issue, it being unpleasant is.

I don't know if impregnating an elephant with a mammoth is any less pleasant than impregnating it with another elephant, or even any less pleasant than keeping it in a zoo for that matter.

Medusa22

I doubt that it is possible, and while I would probably be one of the first to go and see it at the zoo if it actually happened, I don't think it is right.

The mammoth won't be able to breed because it will have part elephant and part mammoth DNA so it will be the only mammoth and when it dies they will be extinct again so really it is pointless.

The poor creature will probably spend much of its life being experimented on.

RebelSoul

Seachmall wrote: »

They are forced in the sense that they don't have an option. If they don't come home at 5 I go out and bring them in.

What I take from your response is it being "unnatural" isn't the issue, it being unpleasant is.

I don't know if impregnating an elephant with a mammoth is any less pleasant than impregnating it with another elephant, or even any less pleasant than keeping it in a zoo for that matter.

Unnatural is my issue, not my only issue though. It's just I really can't draw a comparison between an animal being impregnated with a foreign species and a dog sleeping in a man made room. It seems silly to me.

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

Unnatural is my issue, not my only issue though. It's just I really can't draw a comparison between an animal being impregnated with a foreign species and a dog sleeping in a man made room. It seems silly to me.

What about injecting someone with a vaccine?

That doesn't occur in nature.

My point is there are millions of things that we do on a daily basis don't typically occur naturally but that does not make them unethical. It's a fallacious appeal to nature.

1ZRed

RebelSoul wrote: »

Unnatural is my issue, not my only issue though. It's just I really can't draw a comparison between an animal being impregnated with a foreign species and a dog sleeping in a man made room. It seems silly to me.

Donkeys and horses are commonly crossbreed even though they are different species.

Da Shins Kelly

Don't see it happening, but it would be a pointless exercise. The planet has changed since the time of the woolly mammoth. Where would they live? What would they eat? How would they adapt to the current state of the earth? What would it mean for other organisms living in the habitat that they're put into? Would they be able to breed? What about genetic diversity?

What's the purpose of this experiment other than to say "look what we can do!"? It's unnatural and pretty much anti-evolution. The money and resources for this vanity project could be used for more pressing conversational issues, such as the preservation of ecosystems and the survival of current elephant species.

Wibbs

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I thought that there would be a problem with oxygen levels or some sh1t

Naw that's only with dinosaurs as the O2 levels back then were much higher than today.

1ZRed wrote: »

There is less than 5% neanderthal DNA in us, that's largely due to us splitting from the same gene pool so we have DNA in common, on either side.

There's also doubt that neanderthals interbred with us.

That doubt is highly dubious. For a start there are clear well dated sites of Neandertal populations that are more recent than that study(if you could call it that) mentions. There was almost certainly a period of time when Neandertal and modern human populations overlapped in the same area. Many thousands of years of time. That's in Europe alone. never mind in the middle east 100-90 Kya where we were living cheek by jowl for thousands of years and where the genetic "clock" suggests that's where we got jiggy with each other, not in later Europe(that said I'll put money down we got jiggy in Europe too).

As for the less than 5%/shared gene pool part? Couple of problems with that. 1) the genetic clock shows the insertion of genes came much later after the shared history event. 300,000 years later. 2) Otzi the iceman's DNA show nearly 7% Neandertal because the bloke was closer to the event by a few thousand years 3) and the one that kills it stone dead, modern humans went through a genetic bottleneck in Africa where we were reduced to tens of thousands in number. So all humans today are related to that small African group. In which case that research has to be wrong in it's conclusions, because we should all then have Neandertal DNA if it was shared from before or we all shouldn't if it wasn't, but we do and we vary in that. Never mind Denisovan DNA from another human subspecies in Asia. Some modern populations have over 10% of their genes in them.

If they were brought back they would not be homosapien or "human", as they are a different subspecies.

They would be very close to us in genetics. We, modern humans, are quite 'inbred" for a species. EG Chimp populations living just ten miles apart have more genetic diversity than all humans throughout the world. Adding in Neandertal and Denisovan folks(and likely other undiscovered cousins. There's at least one to be found in Africa I reckon) would expand our diversity but not by that much. IMHO they would be full members of our "human" species. Sub sub species at a push.

Would they be like us? Harder call. If we did bring back a Neandertal, he or she would come to us cultureless. We'd learn nothing about how they would have been back in the day. They would be brought up in a modern human environment. I strongly suspect that in such an environment they'd end up as pretty much another human, just like you and me. They might be less "tame", less domesticated in nature compared to modern humans. Maybe a comparison might be drawn comparing the diffs between a wolf and a domestic dog. Basically the same species but with a number of behavioral differences. They might be more "wolf like". I'd say similar if we brought back an earlier version of Homo Sapiens from say 100kya. Back then we don't look too much different to others like Neandertals. Big brow ridges and all. Culturally we weren't so different either. That came much later.

Even so take the cultures of clearly modern folks and compare them to Neandertals. If all we had of native Australians were their stone tools and we'd lost all their complex art and stories, we'd likely say Neandertals were more advanced culturally, in stone tool use anyway. Take modern Andaman islanders, the isolated tribal ones can't control fire. They store fire as burning embers from existing fires/lightning strikes etc, but can't actually make it. Neandertals could, they could even cook up compound glues that require some tricky chemistry. They also carved complex wooden items that Andamans don't(we're only scratching the surface on that side).

TL;DR? I'd regard Neandertal folks if they were still around as people, just like you and me, or anyone else around today.

RebelSoul

Seachmall wrote: »

What about injecting someone with a vaccine?

That doesn't occur in nature.

I assume that person will get a benefit from the vaccine. Cure or prevent a disease. What benefit will an elephant get from being impregnated with a foreign species? It might be work out hunky dory or it could be a terrible, stressful experience for the elephant. Point is we are willing to take a chance on it's life without fulling understanding consequences and that's just wrong.

My point is there are millions of things that we do on a daily basis don't typically occur naturally but that does not make them unethical. It's a fallacious appeal to nature.

I agree but I was focusing my point on the de-extinction of mammoths and the process of it. I'll take everything on a case by case basis. I try as much as possible not to generalise.

Seachmall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

What's the purpose of this experiment other than to say "look what we can do!"?

We've learnt quite a lot from studying the behaviors of other animals, adding extinct animals from thousands of years ago to that list could potentially teach us even more.

What could it teach us? I've no idea, but then I wouldn't have thought looking at birds for a while could've uncovered the origins of life.

RebelSoul wrote: »

It might be work out hunky dory or it could be a terrible, stressful experience for the elephant. Point is we are willing to take a chance on it's life without fulling understanding consequences and that's just wrong.

But again, that's not an "unnatural" argument. That's an ethical issue regarding animal welfare.

Tar.Aldarion

Talk about deExtinction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKc9MJDeqj0