Bringing back extinct species

steddyeddy · 18-03-2013 4:24pm #1

Recently, on march the 15th the first major conference on bringing back extinct species took place. At the conference a list of several candidates for resurrection was presented. The list includes but is not restricted too the thylacine, neanderthal, wooly mammoth and rhino, passenger pigeon and some extinct trees.

This conference is a great development in my opinion but there are people who don't thin it's a good idea for many reasons. Anyway here's the link and below is a quick video detailing the discussions on each side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hgCM8XZkk

Anyway which species would you like to see brought back if any? If you're against the idea let us know why.

Here's my choice. It isn't on the list but I think the specimens are young enough to extract stable DNA from and we could maybe (that's a huge maybe) use a human as a surrogate mother! Flores man, for those who don't know! This hominid died out ten thousand years ago so it's not that old and it would be a great species to see revived!

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgH7OQBLKZwGqisE4wfEAEd7p0zZT3YQyIO5Sa4lHil_i-AlES

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgH7OQBLKZwGqisE4wfEAEd7p0zZT3YQyIO5Sa4lHil_i-AlES

Birdnuts · 18-03-2013 7:38pm

Species should only be brought back if there is sufficient habitat for them. With that in mind I would like to see the return of the Tasmanian Wolf, Great Auk, Passenger pigeon and Tarpans. I will probably think of a few more over the coming days;)

OpenYourEyes · 18-03-2013 8:44pm

I'd go with Birdnuts list, and I'd generally keep it to the more recently extinct species for the foreseeable future.

The ethicical dilemmas that would follow on from considering bringing back various hominids would be extensive to say the least!

Mickeroo · 19-03-2013 2:46pm

I'm not sure about Hominids, doesn't seem right to me . what would they do with them? Keep them locked up in labs? Put them in a zoo? Integrate them into our society?

As Birdnuts said I think species shouldn't be braught back unless there's enough habitat there. I guess the likes of the Wooly Mammoths could potentially do well as there's still large areas of unihabited land for them to wander in the north.

Along with the animals already mentioned I'd like to see the Moa braught back in New Zealand. There's plenty of wilderness for them to thrive in and there isn't anything outside of people to predate on them (and you'd have to imagine that wouldn't happen these days).

Birdnuts · 19-03-2013 6:25pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Along with the animals already mentioned I'd like to see the Moa braught back in New Zealand. There's plenty of wilderness for them to thrive in and there isn't anything outside of people to predate on them (and you'd have to imagine that wouldn't happen these days).

And the giant Haarst eagle that used to prey on them;) - it would also be nice to think we could bring back the elephant bird of Madacasgar but unfortunatly the outlook for what remains of that country's unique flora and fauna looks rather grim in terms of mass habitat destruction etc. so that suggestion would not be vaible:(.

Other species which I think should be considered include Stellars Sea-Cow, Ivory billed Woodpecker, Arabian Ostrich and the giant flightless Stellars Cormorant. The Auroch would also be an exciting addtion too given the succesfull re-introduction of its near relative the European Bison to many former parts of its range:cool:

maria_81 · 21-03-2013 6:39pm

I have no ethical problem with trying to resurrect a species.

However, the only real positives are in what gained be learned from the process i.e. would something be learned about biology and possibly conservation from the process?

The justification for much of conservation is thin enough as it is. Why not take the money, time and expertise that would be spent on resurrecting the tasmanian wolf and use it for something more constructive like habitat preservation, thereby preserving a much richer biodiversity.

As I said, if there's some greater knowledge to be gained in the process of resurrecting a species, I'm all for it. But as an end in itself, based on cost/benefit analysis (assuming it would be a costly process), it's not worthwihle

robp · 21-03-2013 11:32pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Recently, on march the 15th the first major conference on bringing back extinct species took place. At the conference a list of several candidates for resurrection was presented. The list includes but is not restricted too the thylacine, neanderthal, wooly mammoth and rhino, passenger pigeon and some extinct trees.

This conference is a great development in my opinion but there are people who don't thin it's a good idea for many reasons. Anyway here's the link and below is a quick video detailing the discussions on each side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hgCM8XZkk

Anyway which species would you like to see brought back if any? If you're against the idea let us know why.

Here's my choice. It isn't on the list but I think the specimens are young enough to extract stable DNA from and we could maybe (that's a huge maybe) use a human as a surrogate mother! Flores man, for those who don't know! This hominid died out ten thousand years ago so it's not that old and it would be a great species to see revived!

The problem with the Flores fossil is that it was found in a very hot humid environment which is very bad for DNA preservation. There are people checking/checked those bones for DNA.

I think bringing back extinct species is justified on certain rare cases such as the moa or great auk but others like mammoths and Neanderthals are not. Actually I am quite certain bringing back Neanderthals is not currently possible despite the hype.

steddyeddy · 24-03-2013 11:17pm

Well to be perfectly honest I don't think scientists striving to bring these back are doing it purely for reasons of conservation. The geneticists and biochemists involved in his venture are probably doing this to see if it can be done. We keep hearing of scientists in the news saying they would love to clone a neanderthal or a human, then they get slated and retract their statement. Well I can guarantee that every one of those scientists would love to do something like this.

A lot of them aren't thinking about the ethics involved. Hopefully people who work in conservation will be a strong guiding force in these projects.

The_Protector · 25-03-2013 1:02am

Interesting ethical question etc.; but what is the underlying science behind this? How are they going to find an extinct genome, replicate it, grow it, etc. Jurassic park is science fiction.

Tomk1 · 25-03-2013 12:19pm

Scientists want to bring 22 animals back from extinction
http://www.thejournal.ie/science-conference-de-extinction-840062-Mar2013/

"de-extintion" Pretty damn amazing.

steddyeddy · 28-03-2013 8:04pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not sure about Hominids, doesn't seem right to me . what would they do with them? Keep them locked up in labs? Put them in a zoo? Integrate them into our society?

As Birdnuts said I think species shouldn't be braught back unless there's enough habitat there. I guess the likes of the Wooly Mammoths could potentially do well as there's still large areas of unihabited land for them to wander in the north.

Along with the animals already mentioned I'd like to see the Moa braught back in New Zealand. There's plenty of wilderness for them to thrive in and there isn't anything outside of people to predate on them (and you'd have to imagine that wouldn't happen these days).

Hey Mickeroo, you're bang on the money about hominids. If humans were made extinct and I was brought back by another more advanced hominid it would be a very depressing scenario! Geneticist at Yale, James Noonan voiced similar view on the thought of bringing back neanderthals:

Even if a clone did survive, the ethical dilemmas of raising a Neanderthal
would be complicated. In some ways, Neanderthals were similar to modern humans.
They used tools and created art, and they likely had the mental capacity
for language and abstract thinking.

In other respects, though, Neanderthals were quite different. They went
extinct before the agricultural revolution, so they would probably have
difficulty stomaching our modern diet, heavy in grains and dairy. Their physical
appearance—short and stocky, with big heads and strong muscles—would make them
stick out, too.

"I can imagine there would be a serious emotional toll to be raised as a
Neanderthal kid with a bunch of non-Neanderthal people," says Trenton Holliday,
an anthropologist at Tulane University.

For example, if the Neanderthal child was far stronger than modern humans, he
or she might be excluded from playing sports teams, Holliday says. If
intellectually disabled—or intellectually gifted—he or she might be put into
isolating educational programs.

Church agrees that these ethical issues are important to consider in any
cloning project. "For any species, we want to maximize the chances that they
will be born and live physically and socially healthy lives," he says.

steddyeddy · 28-03-2013 8:07pm

The_Protector wrote: »

Interesting ethical question etc.; but what is the underlying science behind this? How are they going to find an extinct genome, replicate it, grow it, etc. Jurassic park is science fiction.

Well in some of the cases like the neanderthal they have genomes. What they usually would do is implant a neandethal genome into an embryonic cell of a related species. In the case of a neanderthal it would be a human. This person would carry the neanderthal full term until c-section would be performed due to the large cranium of the neanderthal (ouch).

Generally it's a case of finding similar breeds to the extinct animals and using the DNA of that extinct animal, breed it back into existence. Eg the mammoth and the elephant ect.

DyldeBrill · 28-03-2013 8:10pm

Sabertooth tiger wud be pretty cool!

steddyeddy · 28-03-2013 8:12pm

DyldeBrill wrote: »

Sabertooth tiger wud be pretty cool!

Yes It sure would! It's a good thing that they finally held a conference dealing with this!

belcampprisoner · 28-03-2013 8:19pm

Charles haughy

steddyeddy · 28-03-2013 8:24pm

belcampprisoner wrote: »

Charles haughy

Whoever comes up with that suggestion in the lab would be quickly disemboweled!!

Hollzy · 29-03-2013 3:48pm

I'd love to see species that have gone extinct due to human interference being brought back but as for mammoths and saber tooth tigers... Would they be kept in zoos? It seems odd to bring a species back just to showcase it. But releasing them into the wild would be a terrible idea surely. We all know how much harm invasive species can do. Bringing back animals that died out naturally thousands of years ago would really disrupt the ecosystems involved.

steddyeddy · 29-03-2013 3:59pm

Hollzy wrote: »

I'd love to see species that have gone extinct due to human interference being brought back but as for mammoths and saber tooth tigers... Would they be kept in zoos? It seems odd to bring a species back just to showcase it. But releasing them into the wild would be a terrible idea surely. We all know how much harm invasive species can do. Bringing back animals that died out naturally thousands of years ago would really disrupt the ecosystems involved.

Well it depends on the animal. The loss of some animals from the eecosystem has already left a whole in and caused damage too the ecosystem. Some of these animals would fit nicely into areas with a lack of large apex predator, such as the sabertoothed tiger.

OpenYourEyes · 29-03-2013 4:11pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it depends on the animal. The loss of some animals from the eecosystem has already left a whole in and caused damage too the ecosystem. Some of these animals would fit nicely into areas with a lack of large apex predator, such as the sabertoothed tiger.

Anywhere thats lacking a sabretooth tiger either probably has a current apex predator, or is missing an apex predator that still exists elsewhere, so I think it'd be harder to argue to bring back an apex predator. I think it'd be easier to argue to bring back herbivores. obviously aided by the fact that there would be far less human-wildlife conflict (and/or perceived conflict).

I think it'd be easier to argue for bringing back a herbivore e.g. bringing back the Irish Elk, reintroducing it to Connemara, it'd probably displace a lot of the deer already there so wouldn't cause too much of a change to the ecosystem there, except to displace some not-particularly-native deer. Obviously there'd be huge tourism benefits though, and the money and political motivation that would come with it would have positive externalities for the ecosystem in that part of the country in general.

steddyeddy · 29-03-2013 4:24pm

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Anywhere thats lacking a sabretooth tiger either probably has a current apex predator, or is missing an apex predator that still exists elsewhere, so I think it'd be harder to argue to bring back an apex predator. I think it'd be easier to argue to bring back herbivores. obviously aided by the fact that there would be far less human-wildlife conflict (and/or perceived conflict).

I think it'd be easier to argue for bringing back a herbivore e.g. bringing back the Irish Elk, reintroducing it to Connemara, it'd probably displace a lot of the deer already there so wouldn't cause too much of a change to the ecosystem there, except to displace some not-particularly-native deer. Obviously there'd be huge tourism benefits though, and the money and political motivation that would come with it would have positive externalities for the ecosystem in that part of the country in general.

Well look at the re-introduction of the wolf to yellowstone park. The elk there were over browsing on the plant species there. This had an impact on other animals which relied on the plants and trees such as the beaver, bear and various insect species. The re-introduction off the wolf balanced out the elk population and as a result beaver and bears have returned to yellowstone park.

Man eliminated the apex predator predator in the park because he thought the predator did more garment than good but herbivores can also throw the ecosystem out of balance.

Mickeroo · 29-03-2013 4:30pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at the re-introduction of the wolf to yellowstone park. The elk there were over browsing on the plant species there. This had an impact on other animals which relied on the plants and trees such as the beaver, bear and various insect species. The re-introduction off the wolf balanced out the elk population and as a result beaver and bears have returned to yellowstone park.

Man eliminated the apex predator predator in the park because he thought the predator did more garment than good but herbivores can also throw the ecosystem out of balance.

But where on the planet is lacking a sabre tooth tiger is what OpenYourEyes is getting at I think. Somewhere lacking an apex predator would probably benefit from the introduction of regular wolves,lions,tigers,bears etc. rather than an extinct species.

steddyeddy · 29-03-2013 4:41pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

But where on the planet is lacking a sabre tooth tiger is what OpenYourEyes is getting at I think. Somewhere lacking an apex predator would probably benefit from the introduction of regular wolves,lions,tigers,bears etc. rather than an extinct species.

The sabertoothed tiger would fit well into much of the sub tropical south American ecosystem. Another place where it would not only fit in but benefit is Montana. There are herds of wild horses in Montana that lack adequate food sources. As a result government bodies have to feed starving horses every year. One expert there favoured the introduction of the African lion in order to thin out the herd. Only a few thousand years ago, Panthera Atrox was roaming the plains of America taking out herbivores.

The Florida Panther is another animal that was re-introduced in order to balance out the ecosystem. The animal you intend to re-introduce in the system doesn't have to be the exact same as an animal that used to live there but should be an analogue of one.

OpenYourEyes · 29-03-2013 4:50pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

The sabertoothed tiger would fit well into much of the sub tropical south American ecosystem. Another place where it would not only fit in but benefit is Montana. There are herds of wild horses in Montana that lack adequate food sources. As a result government bodies have to feed starving horses every year. One expert there favoured the introduction of the African lion in order to thin out the herd. Only a few thousand years ago, Panthera Atrox was roaming the plains of America taking out herbivores.

The Florida Panther is another animal that was re-introduced in order to balance out the ecosystem. The animal you intend to re-introduce in the system doesn't have to be the exact same as an animal that used to live there but should be an analogue of one.

Yeah, like Mickeroo said I think you're misundersanding me. There's plenty of places that would benefit from the re-introduction of an apex predator - but most of them are missing an apex predator that exists elsewhere (e.g. yellowstone was missing wolves - but wolves existed elsewhere), as well as an extinct species.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The animal you intend to re-introduce in the system doesn't have to be the exact same as an animal that used to live there but should be an analogue of one.

Absolutely, but its considered best that the gap between what was there and what you intend to put there should be as small as possible.
If an apex predator is going to be reintroduced to an area, I can't imagine the relevant authorities skipping over a predator species that exists elsewhere in favour of bringing back a predator species thats completely extinct. Obviously it'd be way more costly, and there'd be a lot more scientific and ecological question-marks over the project than there would be with a species that currently exists elsewhere or that was present in the area in the recent past

steddyeddy · 01-04-2013 4:57pm

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Yeah, like Mickeroo said I think you're misundersanding me. There's plenty of places that would benefit from the re-introduction of an apex predator - but most of them are missing an apex predator that exists elsewhere (e.g. yellowstone was missing wolves - but wolves existed elsewhere), as well as an extinct species.

Absolutely, but its considered best that the gap between what was there and what you intend to put there should be as small as possible.
If an apex predator is going to be reintroduced to an area, I can't imagine the relevant authorities skipping over a predator species that exists elsewhere in favour of bringing back a predator species thats completely extinct. Obviously it'd be way more costly, and there'd be a lot more scientific and ecological question-marks over the project than there would be with a species that currently exists elsewhere or that was present in the area in the recent past

Hey open your eyes, looking from a point of view of conservation you would be right. That's not exclusively what de-extinction is about. They want to bring an animal back now for vanity reasons and to see if they can do it. Once they can then these processes can be used in the future.

I agree re-wilding (moving extant species into a niche were they are absent) makes a lot more sense than de-extinction. The thing is though if the current trend continues we will have made elephants, lions, tigers, orangutans and many others extinct. De-extinction can play a part in making sure we are not the only animal left on the planet but we need to perfect these techniques now sooner than later.

In short de-extinction is more effective than preventing extinction than re-wilding imho.

Birdnuts · 01-04-2013 8:59pm

Other suiteable candidates would include the Cuban Red McCaw and the Ivory-billed wood pecker.

steddyeddy · 01-04-2013 9:07pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Other suiteable candidates would include the Cuban Red McCaw and the Ivory-billed wood pecker.

The Cuban McCaw is a beautiful creature, or was I should say. As far as I know there are still claimed sightings of the ivory billed woodpecker but nothing concrete.

Birdnuts · 01-04-2013 9:15pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

The Cuban McCaw is a beautiful creature, or was I should say. As far as I know there are still claimed sightings of the ivory billed woodpecker but nothing concrete.

Yeah - I was going to also suggest the magnificent Imperial WoodPecker of which old footage from the 1950's still exists. Sadly though its habitat has been more or less destroyed in Mexico:(

OpenYourEyes · 01-04-2013 10:44pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree re-wilding (moving extant species into a niche were they are absent) makes a lot more sense than de-extinction. The thing is though if the current trend continues we will have made elephants, lions, tigers, orangutans and many others extinct. De-extinction can play a part in making sure we are not the only animal left on the planet but we need to perfect these techniques now sooner than later.

In short de-extinction is more effective than preventing extinction than re-wilding imho.

I had a big long-winded reply typed, but I think our discussion is getting a bit mixed up alright, so I'll just reply to the above!

Don't forget that for elephants, lions, tigers etc we have a captive population so the de-extinction technique probably won't ever be used on them.

And de-extinction is okay for having a species alive and in zoos etc, but the conditions necessary for reintroducing an extant species would be the same as the conditions necessary for reintroducing a formerly extinct species i.e. available habitat, reassurance that they won't all be shot etc.
So I don't see how de-extinction is more effective than re-wilding? They're pretty much the same thing, except that the extant species have a headstart, greater numbers, more genetic diversity, less money needed, more research done on them etc?

locum-motion · 01-04-2013 11:28pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

...Cuban Red McCaw...

Never heard of it. But I have heard of the New Zealand All Black McCaw!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

steddyeddy · 09-04-2013 11:24pm

Brilliant ted talk from Stewart brand on de-extinction. This speech is going to become famous trust me.

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

Adam Khor · 10-04-2013 12:24am

steddyeddy wrote: »

The sabertoothed tiger would fit well into much of the sub tropical south American ecosystem. Another place where it would not only fit in but benefit is Montana. There are herds of wild horses in Montana that lack adequate food sources. As a result government bodies have to feed starving horses every year. One expert there favoured the introduction of the African lion in order to thin out the herd. Only a few thousand years ago, Panthera Atrox was roaming the plains of America taking out herbivores.

The Florida Panther is another animal that was re-introduced in order to balance out the ecosystem. The animal you intend to re-introduce in the system doesn't have to be the exact same as an animal that used to live there but should be an analogue of one.

What would a sabertooth eat in South America? The herds of large animals like Macrauchenia, toxodonts, large deer and gomphotheres are long gone... sabertooths were specialized on hunting large prey. I don´t think there's anything in south America big or abundant enough to sustain a sabertooth population, unless we were talking small species (and even those probably would hunt larger animals than similarly-sized pantherines)...

As for the lions in North America... would the African lion really be an analogue of the American lion? As far as we know Panthera atrox was probably not even a social hunter... some would say tigers would be a better analogue of atrox, regardless of the latter's closer relationship to African lions...

I personally don´t think this whole bring back extinct species thing is a good idea when it comes to the bigger, more dangerous species. Extant big animals are not exactly going through great times right now; in much of Mexico, central and south America, for example, large predators such as jaguars and cougars are under some serious pressure from farmers because of wild prey depletion which pushes them to attack livestock. Imagine what would happen if one was to re-introduce sabertooths, atrox or some other larger, potentially more dangerous cat in the same places. Jags and cougars attack people some times; although there is no way to be sure, the simple fact that sabertooths and atrox were larger makes me think they would go after humans even more often if they were still around.
They would quickly be prosecuted and exterminated, as they certainly wouldn´t be able to survive on agouti and river turtles like jags and cougars do sometimes.

Also, look at how large carnivorans are treated in the USA, for example. Do we really want to see sabertooth packs being shot at from helicopters? Do we want to read about how many American lions were killed during the latest lion season?
I personally do not.

I think scientists should be working on the conservation of the animals we still have with us. There is barely space for large animals in today's world anymore. What's the point on bringing others into the mix?

PS- And this all comes from someone who would REALLY love to see mammoths or sabertooths in person...

Hollzy · 10-04-2013 1:56pm

I agree with everything you've just said Adam. Think about the funds that would be required to bring back some of these species and how much more good it would do if invested in conservation.

I also dislike the argument that it would be done just to prove that it can be done or for the sake of vanity. We need to think of the welfare of the species being brought back and all the inhabitants of the ecosystem it would be released into, not what we think would be impressive.

Birdnuts · 10-04-2013 10:59pm

Recent extinctions ie. in the past 1000 years or so should be given priority assuming there is habitat etc. to support any particular species.

vicwatson · 10-04-2013 11:03pm

Article in this months National Geographic, haven't read it yet.

I think that we should being back species, if possible, that man has hunted to extinction (maybe there's not many) but those that became extinct through natural means and natural progression should remain extinct.

Just my twopence worth

OpenYourEyes · 10-04-2013 11:08pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Recent extinctions ie. in the past 1000 years or so should be given priority assuming there is habitat etc. to support any particular species.

I agree, and also I'd imagine the quality of DNA preserved would make these top of the list anyway.

steddyeddy · 10-04-2013 11:57pm

To be honest I don't understand why people are against this. Most zoologists are wetting themselves over this. The thing is by making these animals extinct in the first place the ecosystem did change. Conversationalists want to restore these ecosystems to the way they were while protecting extant species.

As regards the money used to fund this it is a lot yes. Conservation also gets a lot aswell. The WWF put large amounts of money into their campaigns and they have some success. The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.

Adam Khor · 11-04-2013 12:47am

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I don't understand why people are against this. Most zoologists are wetting themselves over this. The thing is by making these animals extinct in the first place the ecosystem did change. Conversationalists want to restore these ecosystems to the way they were while protecting extant species.

As regards the money used to fund this it is a lot yes. Conservation also gets a lot aswell. The WWF put large amounts of money into their campaigns and they have some success. The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.

But, bring them back for what?

My point, and I suposse it may be the point of others who are against this (or at least not thrilled about it) is that if elephants did go extinct, because of overhunting or the war of extermination by farmers, or the fragmentation of habitat... what kind of world would expect the elephants we brought back?

I believe that it is more important to find solutions to the current problem- the factors that are making elephants go extinct in the first place- instead of worrying about bringing them back once they dissappear.
If by the time we bring elephants back there is no longer enough space and habitat for them, or people are ready to start slaughtering them again... wouldn´t it be better for them to stay dead? Bringing an extinct species only to have it in a cage as a curiosity seems wrong to me.

Now don´t get me wrong, I would be as thrilled as the next man to see an extinct species come back, but it should be done only as long as there's a future for that species. Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them. And truth is, if you found a way of preserving the rainforest, you wouldn´t need to be thinking of cloning orangs back to life!

steddyeddy · 11-04-2013 12:49am

Adam Khor wrote: »

But, bring them back for what?

My point, and I suposse it may be the point of others who are against this (or at least not thrilled about it) is that if elephants did go extinct, because of overhunting or the war of extermination by farmers, or the fragmentation of habitat... what kind of world would expect the elephants we brought back?

I believe that it is more important to find solutions to the current problem- the factors that are making elephants go extinct in the first place- instead of worrying about bringing them back once they dissappear.
If by the time we bring elephants back there is no longer enough space and habitat for them, or people are ready to start slaughtering them again... wouldn´t it be better for them to stay dead? Bringing an extinct species only to have it in a cage as a curiosity seems wrong to me.

Now don´t get me wrong, I would be as thrilled as the next man to see an extinct species come back, but it should be done only as long as there's a future for that species. Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them. And truth is, if you found a way of preserving the rainforest, you wouldn´t need to be thinking of cloning orangs back to life!

No it wouldn't because if we get to that point then conservation is useless.

Adam Khor · 11-04-2013 12:53am

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it wouldn't because if we get to that point then conservation is useless.

Exactly. If we get to the point in which bringing the animals back would serve no purpose but to prove that we can, or to feel better about ourselves, as if we were making it up for failing to preserve them in the first place, or to have them as mere curiosities in permanent captivity, then yes, conservation was useless!

There's no point in bringing it back if its no longer gonna be part of its original ecosystem which is supossed to be the point of conservation.

steddyeddy · 11-04-2013 1:04am

Adam Khor wrote: »

Exactly. If we get to the point in which bringing the animals back would serve no purpose but to prove that we can, or to feel better about ourselves, as if we were making it up for failing to preserve them in the first place, or to have them as mere curiosities in permanent captivity, then yes, conservation was useless!

There's no point in bringing it back if its no longer gonna be part of its original ecosystem which is supossed to be the point of conservation.

I think you misunderstood my post. It is never an option to give up on conservation. We have the technology to bring them back so conservation goes on. Anyway I am up early and I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will leave it here.

Adam Khor · 11-04-2013 1:06am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my post. It is never an option to give up on conservation. We have the technology to bring them back so conservation goes on. Anyway I am up early and I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will leave it here.

Fair enough

Hollzy · 11-04-2013 11:41am

Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year, many sub species of rhinos are now extinct and in the last few months orangutans are also on the brink. Apart from funding soldiers to protect these animals we need to learn how to bring these animals back if they become extinct.

This I agree with completely. I'm against bringing back things like mammoths and sabertooths because they died out naturally and they should stay extinct. But species which have died out due to man being brought back is different.

Want to bring back orangutans after they're gone? Fine! But make sure the rainforest is preserved to receive them.

I also agree with this sentiment strongly.

OpenYourEyes · 11-04-2013 12:20pm

It was said earlier in this thread, and I think it's true, that while this research has applications for conservation, it isn't being pushed forward for reasons of conservation or by conservationists/zoologists - the research and techniques are being financed and pushed forward for the benefits to areas like genetics and possibly biomed.

Ziphius · 11-04-2013 1:42pm

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

It was said earlier in this thread, and I think it's true, that while this research has applications for conservation, it isn't being pushed forward for reasons of conservation or by conservationists/zoologists - the research and techniques are being financed and pushed forward for the benefits to areas like genetics and possibly biomed.

Indeed. No doubt recreating ancient genomes will provide use with a wealth of information and understanding in fields of basic biology (such as genetics and evolutionary biology) but as a method of species conservation it is completely unworkable.

Adam Khor has some excellent posts on its flows so there is no point in me rehashing his arguments.

The impression I get is that "de-extinction" is just a savvy marketing slogan and not a solution to the current mass extinction.

Ziphius · 11-04-2013 1:49pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

The dark secret of conservation is that the more successful campaigns have been a result of awareness, political willpower and more firepower.

What do you mean by "dark secret"? It seems obvious that for a conservation project to be successful it needs the support of local stakeholders. It needs to be made worthwhile for people.

I can actually see the "de-extinction" hype being damaging to conservation work. I mean why protect a species now if you can just recreate it in a lab later?

Birdnuts · 12-04-2013 12:42am

steddyeddy wrote: »

.

The fact is we need to perfect de-extinction in order to preserve our extant species. Over 600 elephants were killed in Africa last year,.

600?? - more like 30-40,000 eles!!!. Tanzania alone is losing up to 70 a day as poachers loot famous NP's like Selous with near impunity.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201304060468.html

Adam Khor · 12-04-2013 1:20am

Birdnuts wrote: »

600?? - more like 30-40,000 eles!!!. Tanzania alone is losing up to 70 a day as poachers loot famous NP's like Selous with near impunity.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201304060468.html

That is really terrible

The numbers of sharks killed every year are also hard to believe and makes one wonder how is it possible that we still have sharks at all at this point... It is kinda sad to read old zoology books in which it was stated that sharks are "unlike land carnivores, still abundant and unaffected by human activity".

Hollzy · 13-04-2013 12:14pm

This month's issue of National Geographic has a really interesting article on this. I'd definitely recommend buying it. Here's some information from their website on the topic. Worth reading the comments too.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/your-de-extinction-questions-answered/

Adam Khor · 14-04-2013 6:15am

Hollzy wrote: »

This month's issue of National Geographic has a really interesting article on this. I'd definitely recommend buying it. Here's some information from their website on the topic. Worth reading the comments too.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/your-de-extinction-questions-answered/

I find it quite irritating that people start recommending Nat Geo issues immediatly after I decide to stop buying the magazine for the first time since 1999...

But honestly, I almost broke my back carrying boxes of Nat Geos last time I moved :pac:

Hollzy · 14-04-2013 1:29pm

I'm sorry :P I have a decent collection of them myself but my parents have loads of issues that are over twenty years old. They're worth keeping alright! The Q and A on that website will give you the gist of it anyway.

Ziphius · 14-04-2013 1:35pm

There is quite a lot of articles available online: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/

Is there much more in the hard copy?

Bringing back extinct species

Comments