"De-Extinction" and Zoos

Where do you stand on the prospects of "de-extinction"?

  • No, de-extinction shouldn't be carried out. It is unethical.

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • No, de-extinction shouldn't be carried out. It would take importance away from conservation efforts.

    Votes: 18 30.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction should be carried out, but the revived species should remain in captivity.

    Votes: 6 10.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction should be carried out, but only for species lost due to human activity.

    Votes: 19 31.7%

  • Yes, de-extinction and re-introduction should occur, but only for keystone species of ecosystems.

    Votes: 9 15.0%

  • Yes, de-extinction and re-introduction should occur, and all animals revived should be returned.

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Total voters
    60
Mr. Zootycoon said:
Jbsbsn, skip the cloning part and you have a great strategy to save modern day species.

Actually, you missed some problems for the mammoth, one is ivory trade.
Elephants are (partly) endagered because of (illegal) ivory trade.
Whole herds are being slauthered together. Image what might happen to mammoths.

Besides, how much do we actually know about the mammoth's role in the ecosystem?
What did they exactly eat? What plants do they prefer? What is their exact habitat?
We have trouble answering these questions about european bison and they
died our in the wild in 1921, let alone how little we know about an animal extinct for thousants of years!

Last but not least: they probably died out partly or completely because of climate change.
And it is only getting warmer. They might 'create' their habitat, but they can't change temperatures. If global warming continues, they might not only get de-extinct, but probably re-extinct in a coupe of hundred years.
Click to expand...

As for hunting for ivory, that can be easily controlled for. If the animals are in Canada, there would be little pressure from locals to hunt them. In fact, the locals would be far more inclined to protect them due to the tourism brought in. The driving factor in ivory poaching is the extreme poverty in areas where elephants live. Northern Canada is poor, but this would be an economic boost for the community, not a detriment.

We do know some of mammoth's diets from coprolites, frozen samples, etc. All the plants are still extant, and some, like the osage orange need to be dispersed by mammoths, and it's range has dramatically shrunk since the mammoth's disappearance.

We assume that the bitter cold of the ice age maximum was the optimal time for mammoths, but the reality is, that they were probably far more adaptable than that. In fact, they could probably survive better in a slightly warmer climate where food was more abundant.

It's better to try and fail than to have never tried at all.
 
jbnbsn99 said:
Is there an economic gain to this?

Huge. The potential of seeing mammoths in the wild would be one of the great ecotourism trips in the world. Not only do we see one of the most impressive species ever encountered in human history, we can also marvel at human ingenuity.
Click to expand...

I am not so certain that ecotourism has enabled us to save any species already existing. Yes, creating Jurassic Park will be popular if Disney runs it. And maybe that's how this entire enterprise should be sen: as the fodder for new theme parks. Done right, I can see money can be made.
 
Zooplantman said:
I am not so certain that ecotourism has enabled us to save any species already existing. Yes, creating Jurassic Park will be popular if Disney runs it. And maybe that's how this entire enterprise should be sen: as the fodder for new theme parks. Done right, I can see money can be made.
Click to expand...

Initially, that might be the right approach. Disney Pleistocene?
 
I think that many zoos in colder climates would probably switch from elephants to
Mammoths so they can be seen outdoors all year round.

@jbshsjdhdnwn-

Your long speech was fantastic and incredibly well written. I agree with your points.
 
My opinions vary depending on the species. For something like a mammoth, I'd be fine with cloning for research purposes, but obviously it wouldn't be suited for release into the wild. A recently extinct species, killed off by human activity, could potentially be brought back for release.

A lot of people say that it's a waste of money that could be used for conservation. I'm not really a fan of that argument because who is to say that money would get used for conservation? Whenever there's an article on rich people spending their money on something stupid like a solid gold toilet, people always go "That money could've been used to help a lot of people instead!". But if the rich person didn't buy that toilet, they probably wouldn't have used that money to help people. They would've either kept it or bought some other, probably stupid, thing.

This especially applies if we're talking about cloning long-extinct species that wouldn't be considered for release into the wild, like mammoths. Cloning is still expensive and not very reliable, ESPECIALLY if we're talking about a large animal like a mammoth. If some group tries to clone mammoths on a large scale in the near future, there will probably be some big profit motives behind it, not something funded by a zoo or conservation group. Put a mammoth in a theme park and people will be flocking in from all over the world to see Disney's Ice Age Safari. Disney (just to use them as an example) is a massive, for-profit, entertainment-oriented corporation. If they decided to research cloning so they could put Pleistocene mammals in a theme park, that's not money that would've been used for conservation anyway. They would've just spent it on some other money-making venture.

And I do want to throw in, a lot of people like to use the "mammoth" example simply because it brings more attention to the idea. Realistically, cloning done by research groups and cloning done for conservation purposes will probably include mostly obscure, recent species that the average person isn't familiar with. Saying "SCIENTISTS WANT TO CLONE GOLDEN TOAD" isn't as catchy as "SCIENTISTS WANT TO CLONE WOOLLY MAMMOTH, HOLY CRAP, THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO JURASSIC PARK AND DINOSAURS WILL KILL US ALL?!".

On a side note, I'm always rather disappointed that nobody talks about the possibility of cloning technology to help existing endangered species. Even the population is stable, many endangered animal populations suffer from low genetic diversity. Wouldn't it be cool to use genetic samples from dead animals to bring in genes that might not even be in the population anymore?
 
I think they are looking at cloning n white rhinos. I think they also might be looking at Sumatran and Javans but I am not sure.
 
Interesting to see the thylacine listed under European mammals on that link.....:p
 
I agree, Swampy.

I think it's another case of poor proof-reading.

As there are lots of captive Arabian oryx, I wonder why that species is included.
 
the very generic 'bats' is also a dubious point.
It annoys me that, instead of giving you more information as to what they mean, when clicked on, these just link straight to Wikipedia articles.
 
As there are lots of captive Arabian oryx, I wonder why that species is included.
Click to expand...

Could it be that they meant scimitar-horned oryx* instead?




*I am well aware of the picture of Arabian oryx
 
Hello Savetheelephant
There are lots of captive scimitar-horned oryxes. I wonder if Margaret Attwood wanted to de-extinct the Ascension crake or Kosrae crake instead.

Hello Swampy

I wondered why the bats were just listed in the Americas. The photo seemed to show a European long-eared bat.
 
I stick to my opinion that cloning animals that went extinct by other reasons than humans
is irresponsible. We just don't know enough of them. Introducing new or even disappeared
species into an existing habitat is far from easy. Especially when it has been extinct for so long.

Mammoths might be more adaptable than most of us think, but they were simply not adaptable enough to survive, so why would they survive in a world even more under pressure by global warming and human activities. They would probably survive in (semi-)captivity. But releasing these creatures into the wild can, and probably will have unexpected and negative consequentes. This said, for me, and that is my personal opinion, there is no reason to clone mammoths to keep them in zoos.

And economic gain? We are destroying the world for economic gain!
Is earning money a good reason to [sensured] nature even more?
Mammoths had their chance. The genes that ensured survival live on in elephants.
If elephants have trouble surviving nowadays, image the trouble mammoths will have.
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
I stick to my opinion that cloning animals that went extinct by other reasons than humans
is irresponsible. We just don't know enough of them. Introducing new or even disappeared
species into an existing habitat is far from easy. Especially when it has been extinct for so long.

Mammoths might be more adaptable than most of us think, but they were simply not adaptable enough to survive, so why would they survive in a world even more under pressure by global warming and human activities. They would probably survive in (semi-)captivity. But releasing these creatures into the wild can, and probably will have unexpected and negative consequentes. This said, for me, and that is my personal opinion, there is no reason to clone mammoths to keep them in zoos.

And economic gain? We are destroying the world for economic gain!
Is earning money a good reason to [sensured] nature even more?
Mammoths had their chance. The genes that ensured survival live on in elephants.
If elephants have trouble surviving nowadays, image the trouble mammoths will have.
Click to expand...

You scoff at economic gain, but in every major event and advancement in human history, economics has been the underlying cause. We are a selfish species. How will it benefit us? That selfishness can be used to the advantage of conservationists. If you want to save species, fix the economics of the people who live around and with the species in danger.
 
jbnbsn99 said:
You scoff at economic gain, but in every major event and advancement in human history, economics has been the underlying cause. We are a selfish species. How will it benefit us? That selfishness can be used to the advantage of conservationists. If you want to save species, fix the economics of the people who live around and with the species in danger.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from a practicality sense, it's easier to get stuff done if there's some kind of monetary gain. It's true that a lot of environmental harm is caused by desire for money, but it can swing the other way too, and conservationists often try to come up with ways that people can profit from a healthier environment. It's true that cloned mammoths would not be considered for release into the wild, but the general public would be much more interested in a cloned mammoth than a passenger pigeon. Researchers could use the possibility of a cloned mammoth to get more support and money into cloning. If a research facility clones a mammoth, they could profit from it and put the money towards something more useful.
 
I know conservation works the best when people profit.
But money shouldn't be a reason to mess with nature, but unfortunately, it is.

Don't get me wrong, but you are missing the point here.
I think cloning mammoths is irresponsible, they simply don't belong in this time.
An animal shouldn't have to 'create its own habitat'. Animals don't die out without a reason.
Exept climate change, there might be other reasons why there are no mammoths around today.
We can only guess the impact they will have on their new habitat and the species already living in it. This, compared with troubles we already have in conserving modern day megafauna - species that actually belong in this time and already fit in a existing ecosystems -, makes me think cloning them is nothing les than irresponsible.
For me, and again, this is my personal opinion, that outweights the economic and educational purposes (the education part is already carried our by museums).

I just realise I sound like Ian Malcom! :D
'your scientist were so preoccupied on wether or not they could that they did't stop to think if they should.' (Seems appropriate to me ;))
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
I know conservation works the best when people profit.
But money shouldn't be a reason to mess with nature, but unfortunately, it is.

Don't get me wrong, but you are missing the point here.
I think cloning mammoths is irresponsible, they simply don't belong in this time.
An animal shouldn't have to 'create its own habitat'. Animals don't die out without a reason.
Exept climate change, there might be other reasons why there are no mammoths around today.
We can only guess the impact they will have on their new habitat and the species already living in it. This, compared with troubles we already have in conserving modern day megafauna - species that actually belong in this time and already fit in a existing ecosystems -, makes me think cloning them is nothing les than irresponsible.
For me, and again, this is my personal opinion, that outweights the economic and educational purposes (the education part is already carried our by museums).

I just realise I sound like Ian Malcom! :D
'your scientist were so preoccupied on wether or not they could that they did't stop to think if they should.' (Seems appropriate to me ;))
Click to expand...

Who says mammoths don't belong in our time. If it weren't for humans, where do you think they'd be?

As for co-existing with the current species, those are the same species that the mammoths co-existed with when they were extant.

When I say they "create" their own habitat, this is simply a reflection of elephant ecology. African elephants are known to create whole ecosystems in their native range.

I have a hard time going along with you when you cite personal opinion as your driving factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top