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...

Bringing back extinct species

Comments