To be fair, it's very much up for debate how much of a part humans played in the extinction of mammoths and other Pleistocene megafauna. There isn't a whole lot of evidence to show that human activity drove 'em to extinction.
"De-Extinction" and Zoos
- Thread starter WV Zoo Volunteer
- Start date
To be fair, it's very much up for debate how much of a part humans played in the extinction of mammoths and other Pleistocene megafauna. There isn't a whole lot of evidence to show that human activity drove 'em to extinction.
If you view humans as a "force" of nature and part of the natural evolution of life on Earth...than why not say that any creature incapable of thriving in the "Anthropocene" does not belong in this time? Humans are not seperate from nature...one of of the reasons I support regulated and sustainable hunting (although I am not a hunter)...being part of nature, arguably, our effect on the earth is natural. Fortunately we are capable of reason and can therefore rise above our "nature". If our reason and ingenuity allows us to somehow "recover" lost species (in addition to saving others not yet gone)...how is that result unnatural?
The argument that Mammoths (which in truth I believe are well over a century from being "revived") could not exist in today's world is just that...an argument...and not particularly well thought out. The environmental conditions are not that different from their day...every species currently alive once shared the world with Mammoths...the last known Mammoth populations on the Pribolofs and Wrangel Island survived (with the drawbacks of isolated populations) until humans showed up at those refuges. Same with the Stellar Seacow. Musk Oxen faded from Eurasia 2,000 years ago...but have been brought back. Horses lived until 8,000 years ago in North America...and have been restored, (in a fashion--I seriously think Pzewalski's Horses and Old World Wild Asses should be introduced and our feral animals removed) a restoration completely contrary to intentions of humans, perhaps an indication as to just how appropriate horses and burros are for North America.
The Mammoth in North America and (probably) Siberia would do just fine in comparison to contemporary Elephants in Africa and Asia...at least regarding poaching for tusks and habitat protection, provided levels of economic development remains unchanged. The truth is large mammals are doing better in North America and, to an extant, Europe than really just about anywhere else in the world. Although perhaps in populations more managed and habitats more modified than some purists would prefer.
I read an article recently about the Pleistocene wave of extinctions throughout the world as humans radiated from Africa. The author noted the high number of megafauna species that survived in Africa and noted that Texas and Argentina once were just a rich....ironically failing to note that both areas (if we get past this nonsensical "invasive species" prejudice) have proven his point and actually gained large mammal species in the last hundred years thanks to human intervention. Texas suffers a predator deficit (jaguar, brown bear, wolf, and monk seal) but is today home to every mammal species present at the time the Spanish first arrived...and then some.
I understand, especially on islands, invasive species sometimes are undesirable...however I look at modern humans and their "fiddling" as the ecological equivalent of an land bridge and, at least for continental ecologies, the invasive species an enrichment. Isolated islands are different.
Mammoths (and anything else that can be saved and restored within the realistic parameters of human tolerance) belong here...and nature may have provided the agent to make it happen...as our philosophy towards conservation evolves parallel to our natural intellect...which enables us to do just that.
The Texan said it better, but I agree with him. This is an opportunity...though I think it is a bit further off in the future. I mean growing up I was led to believe Moon colonies would be here by now and the theoretical technology does exist...but it ain't happened. Same with de extinction (aside from the recently lost). In 200 years...it's either gonna be Mammoths with us...or without us the brown rat will be on the verge of radiating into a whole new mammalian order...and we will be gone. ;-)
The argument that Mammoths (which in truth I believe are well over a century from being "revived") could not exist in today's world is just that...an argument...and not particularly well thought out. The environmental conditions are not that different from their day...every species currently alive once shared the world with Mammoths...the last known Mammoth populations on the Pribolofs and Wrangel Island survived (with the drawbacks of isolated populations) until humans showed up at those refuges. Same with the Stellar Seacow. Musk Oxen faded from Eurasia 2,000 years ago...but have been brought back. Horses lived until 8,000 years ago in North America...and have been restored, (in a fashion--I seriously think Pzewalski's Horses and Old World Wild Asses should be introduced and our feral animals removed) a restoration completely contrary to intentions of humans, perhaps an indication as to just how appropriate horses and burros are for North America.
The Mammoth in North America and (probably) Siberia would do just fine in comparison to contemporary Elephants in Africa and Asia...at least regarding poaching for tusks and habitat protection, provided levels of economic development remains unchanged. The truth is large mammals are doing better in North America and, to an extant, Europe than really just about anywhere else in the world. Although perhaps in populations more managed and habitats more modified than some purists would prefer.
I read an article recently about the Pleistocene wave of extinctions throughout the world as humans radiated from Africa. The author noted the high number of megafauna species that survived in Africa and noted that Texas and Argentina once were just a rich....ironically failing to note that both areas (if we get past this nonsensical "invasive species" prejudice) have proven his point and actually gained large mammal species in the last hundred years thanks to human intervention. Texas suffers a predator deficit (jaguar, brown bear, wolf, and monk seal) but is today home to every mammal species present at the time the Spanish first arrived...and then some.
I understand, especially on islands, invasive species sometimes are undesirable...however I look at modern humans and their "fiddling" as the ecological equivalent of an land bridge and, at least for continental ecologies, the invasive species an enrichment. Isolated islands are different.
Mammoths (and anything else that can be saved and restored within the realistic parameters of human tolerance) belong here...and nature may have provided the agent to make it happen...as our philosophy towards conservation evolves parallel to our natural intellect...which enables us to do just that.
The Texan said it better, but I agree with him. This is an opportunity...though I think it is a bit further off in the future. I mean growing up I was led to believe Moon colonies would be here by now and the theoretical technology does exist...but it ain't happened. Same with de extinction (aside from the recently lost). In 200 years...it's either gonna be Mammoths with us...or without us the brown rat will be on the verge of radiating into a whole new mammalian order...and we will be gone. ;-)
Last edited:
WV Zoo Volunteer
Member
It's common consensus that humans were the primary cause of the Pleistocene Extinction Event in Australia, at least. Hunting, firestick farming, and other activities caused the demise of almost entire ecosystems. Such animals include the Giant Short Faced Kangaroo (Procoptodon goliah), the Genyorn (Genyornis newtoni), the Rhinoceros Wombat (Diprotodon optatum), and the Pouch Lion (Thylacoleo carnifex) among many others, ending with the Thylacine in recent times. Any drastic climate change occurred far after the Australian decline began.
In addition, it's not crazy to believe that humans played a key part in not only the Pleistocene Extinction Event globally, but also perhaps the end of the Paleolithic Ice Age entirely.
Think about it. Hunters take advantage of the massive diversity and unthinkable density of megafauna in the frozen north, along the steppes. As human populations go up, our prey's goes down. Less megafauna on the cold grasslands due to pressure from humans means the forests can encroach back onto the open plains, accompanied by tundra.
Mammoths were among these megafauna. Huge proboscideans like themselves are the very engineers of their environment, making them a driving influence in the landscape around them. These northern Pleistocene megafauna, mammoths especially, inadvertently culture an environment very different from what we know today.
Their influence is absolutely massive. We know how much even small herds of large herbivores can do when returned to the tundra and taiga, thanks to Pleistocene Park. The grasslands of old, slowly but surely, begin to return.
These aforementioned grasslands are able to insulate the permafrost underneath. Forests and tundra, however, are much worse at that job. This causes greenhouse gases trapped for millennia before to be released back into our atmosphere.
See what I'm getting at here? People who deny ancient humans' roles in the extinction of species often blame climate change. But what if us humans were the culprits behind much of that, too? What if we kicked the domino and started something much larger than we thought possible?
What seem to just have been dead-end extinctions may have kick-started the Pleistocene Extinction event around the world.
I think it's generally more accepted that humans had a larger part in the extinction of the Australian megafauna. I'm a bit more familiar with North American Pleistocene wildlife, and the human role in extinction there is a bit more up for debate. For many species, there is little to no evidence of hunting. (granted, it is possible we just haven't found this evidence yet) It's true that the extinctions coincide with the arrival of humans, but the arrival of humans also coincides with environmental and climate changes. (think Bering land bridge)
Human activity almost certainly contributed in the case of NA species, but I rather doubt it was the sole cause.
It should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Let's keep in mind the strides conservation alone has taken in one hundred years and the strides we could make in the future. Let's keep in mind how far genetics alone has come since the first clones were produced. It's impossible to grasp how far we may come yet in twenty to one hundred years.
At this moment in time, "de-extinction" is barely plausible and in the long run, impossible. Cloning is incredibly expensive and a brutal process, and there's no extinct species we could even hypothetically reproduce to a genetically viable population at this moment in time. You can't simply continue cloning the same male or female ibex repeatedly, much less mating them - there'd be little genetic variation, the offspring would have to mate amongst family or die out, and you'd get severe inbreeding and long-term health issues. Genetic variation is a concept that still hasn't broken mainstream that is incredibly important to conservation.
If we were to find a way to overcome issues of genetic variation, that would unlock the keys to not only cloning extinct species but improving the conservation efforts of existing ones several times over. It would be a delicate and initially expensive process, but if we were able to create genetically unique individuals for existing species it would certainly help any of them. I think that level of genetic technology is far away and could be really difficult to do for rare species with low genetics to begin with. No doubt new ethical questions will open.
I don't think we can realistically plan any "de-extinction" goals with returning animals to the wild in mind until we can plot how to strengthen their numbers long term. Until then, it's mostly a question of a sideshow attraction, and there's an argument that keeping a virtually extinct species in zoos may push out room for critically endangered species that need the room more. Still, I think if we could display a passenger pigeon or a dodo somewhere, it could teach casual zoogoers a lot about the importance of conservation.
I think more efforts like the Frozen Zoo in San Diego, to preserve the genetic material of existing and extinct species, should continue in hopes for the future when we can overcome these issues.
At this moment in time, "de-extinction" is barely plausible and in the long run, impossible. Cloning is incredibly expensive and a brutal process, and there's no extinct species we could even hypothetically reproduce to a genetically viable population at this moment in time. You can't simply continue cloning the same male or female ibex repeatedly, much less mating them - there'd be little genetic variation, the offspring would have to mate amongst family or die out, and you'd get severe inbreeding and long-term health issues. Genetic variation is a concept that still hasn't broken mainstream that is incredibly important to conservation.
If we were to find a way to overcome issues of genetic variation, that would unlock the keys to not only cloning extinct species but improving the conservation efforts of existing ones several times over. It would be a delicate and initially expensive process, but if we were able to create genetically unique individuals for existing species it would certainly help any of them. I think that level of genetic technology is far away and could be really difficult to do for rare species with low genetics to begin with. No doubt new ethical questions will open.
I don't think we can realistically plan any "de-extinction" goals with returning animals to the wild in mind until we can plot how to strengthen their numbers long term. Until then, it's mostly a question of a sideshow attraction, and there's an argument that keeping a virtually extinct species in zoos may push out room for critically endangered species that need the room more. Still, I think if we could display a passenger pigeon or a dodo somewhere, it could teach casual zoogoers a lot about the importance of conservation.
I think more efforts like the Frozen Zoo in San Diego, to preserve the genetic material of existing and extinct species, should continue in hopes for the future when we can overcome these issues.
It’s been years since we last heard anything in mammoth cloning. At this rate, we won’t be successful at de-extinction for another two decades at worst.
Meanwhile, I wish scientists luck on bigger challenges like dodos and passenger pigeons.
Meanwhile, I wish scientists luck on bigger challenges like dodos and passenger pigeons.
I agree about the passenger pigeon, which I consider the worst case of a species being wiped out by humans. It was a species that bred in zoos. When I went to Jersey Zoo, the Mauritius pink pigeon keeper was very enthusiastic about his work. Hopefully, someone like him and Carl Jones could help with the species if it could be cloned.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I completely oppose any attempt to bring back extinct species through the use of cloning. I fear that if we have the ability to bring back a species any time we want, people may begin to no longer care for the environment. "Extinction is forever" will mean nothing, as it won't be any more.
However, I oppose mammoth cloning more than anything else. We're still not completely sure that humans made mammoths extinct (I have a hard time believing that climate didn't play a role) and all the other wildlife has had thousands of years to evolve without the mammoth in their environment! I think the only things mammoths will do is destroy a sensitive environment.
However, I oppose mammoth cloning more than anything else. We're still not completely sure that humans made mammoths extinct (I have a hard time believing that climate didn't play a role) and all the other wildlife has had thousands of years to evolve without the mammoth in their environment! I think the only things mammoths will do is destroy a sensitive environment.
I agree with bringing back some of the smaller species.
In the C19th, the passenger pigeon was one of the world's most populous bird species. It should never have been allowed to become extinct. I used to believe that it had to live in large colonies to breed, but as a few zoos bred the species, it could and should have been saved.
In the C19th, the passenger pigeon was one of the world's most populous bird species. It should never have been allowed to become extinct. I used to believe that it had to live in large colonies to breed, but as a few zoos bred the species, it could and should have been saved.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I think the idea of bringing the mammoth back through cloning is totally absurd too.
Speaking of absurd, there are scientists out there that want to bring back Neanderthals.
This is one de-extinction that I highly disagree with. Say what you will about mammoths and smilodons, but Neanderthals are worse for several reasons.
1) They cut way too close to human cloning. You could say they are animals, but they are still a prehistoric human species regardless.
2) They will not survive in today’s climate. Not only their brains are still primal, but they wouldn’t be able to have education or even be trusted with today’s jobs.
3) They are stronger than us and could be dangerous if not taken cared of. Imagine one fighting a modern human over a dispute, they would be beyond a mere injury. There’s also the debate if modern guns will even phase them.
This is a controversial subject, but it’s too important to not talk about.
This is one de-extinction that I highly disagree with. Say what you will about mammoths and smilodons, but Neanderthals are worse for several reasons.
1) They cut way too close to human cloning. You could say they are animals, but they are still a prehistoric human species regardless.
2) They will not survive in today’s climate. Not only their brains are still primal, but they wouldn’t be able to have education or even be trusted with today’s jobs.
3) They are stronger than us and could be dangerous if not taken cared of. Imagine one fighting a modern human over a dispute, they would be beyond a mere injury. There’s also the debate if modern guns will even phase them.
This is a controversial subject, but it’s too important to not talk about.
This is my first time hearing of this.
If it’s really that heat potent, it would be a greater effort worth doing.
I think that Neanderthals would be victims of racism and would be subject to ridicule, rather than understanding. Neanderthal is a bus ride from Dusseldorf. I visited the museum that included a model of a Neanderthal man wearing a suit and bowler hat. Outside were reconstructed aurochs and tarpans.
Last edited:
Another point on why they wouldn’t survive in today’s society.
Many would see them as animals or dumb apes than humans. They wouldn’t quickly adapt to the many modern changes compared how things were in their past.
Easily the most controversial species anyone would think about de-extincting.
Who is debating this, and why?
Just your average discussion in Youtube comment sections.
The thing these people fear is more of say Neanderthals were to become criminals or form their own gangs and if crime grew even worse as a result.
Just the usual paranoia.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yeah, exactly my thoughts, which "scientists" would be considering bringing back an extinct hominid ?
It would never pass a scientifical ethics comittee and worries about the calibres of guns to ice a neanderthaal ? what is this s*** ? "resident evil" or something ?!
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yeah... I don't think there are many "scientists" commenting on youtube videos about neanderthal de-extinction despite what they claim
