SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Following recent talk of resurrecting the woolly mammoth, a new analysis has poured cold water on the idea of de-extinction efforts, recommending that funding go to conservation efforts instead:
Ten days ago, science news media outlets around the world reported that a Harvard University–led team was on the verge of resurrecting the wooly mammoth. Although many articles oversold the findings, the concept of de-extinction—bringing extinct animals back to life through genetic engineering—is beginning to move from the realm of science fiction to reality. Now, a new analysis of the economics suggests that our limited conservation funding would be better spent elsewhere.
"The conversation thus far has been focused on whether or not we can do this. Now, we are progressing toward the: 'Holy crap, we can—so should we?' phase," says Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at University of California, Santa Barbara, who was not involved in the study. "It is like we've just about put the last stiches in [Frankenstein's monster], and there is this moment of pause as we consider whether it is actually a good idea to flip the switch and electrify the thing to life."
[...] the results also show that if instead of focusing the money on de-extinction, one allocated it into existing conservation programs for living species, we would see a much bigger increase in biodiversity—roughly two to eight times more species saved. In other words, the money would be better spent elsewhere to prevent existing species from going extinct in the first place [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0053] [DX], the team reports today in Nature Ecology and Evolution.
[article abstract not yet available]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:38PM (5 children)
I don't disagree with the premise that preserving current biodiversity is more cost-effective and desirable than de-extincting species in the name of biodiversity. However, there must be other reasons for going down the de-extinction path that justifies the effort.
I cannot think of any reason to bring back Mammoths beyond being really cool. But is that not enough of a reason?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:50PM (3 children)
Polar bears gonna need something to eat in the arctic when the poles melt, so seed Siberia and North Canada with Mammoth herds.
Something often overlooked in this era of fattening up livestock on farmed corn, is back in the good old days the only productive use of some wastelands was feeding pasture livestock. Think of some Texas cattle ranch. My point is the north of Canada perhaps serves no useful economic purpose and growing some woolly mammoth could produce a heck of a lot of edible protein out of worthless wasteland. Now obviously a cattle rancher in the USA is going to do everything up to slander and libel, or beyond, to keep mammoth meat off the market. It would seem if you can engineer it to exist you can engineer it to taste good, so at least that won't be a problem.
Anyway there's a lot of land in the world that can't be industrially farmed because its bad land, but it does produce enough cellulose to grow a herd of tasty meat. And the mammoth can probably tolerate worse weather than any moo cow...
If cows moo, what sound does the mammoth make? If you thought "what does the fox say" was a catchy annoying tune, wait until my remake of "what does the mammoth say" hits the charts.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 01 2017, @01:33PM (2 children)
Caribou?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:35PM (1 child)
Santa, that magnificent bastard, has brainwashed too many kids into thinking reindeer pull his sleigh when its obviously area 51 UFO levitation technology. Anyway you can only sell "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" burger patties to some place at least somewhat outside western civ.
Maybe we could sell "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer Burger Patties" to Chinese and they could sell us ... melamine contaminated dog meat patties, naw thats not going to work. Easier to get kids to eat Rudolph than Lassie.
Caribou are interesting but its just not gonna happen culturally.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:26PM
We could call them "elk." Nobody would know the difference. It's more honest than calling Subway's meat nuggets, "chicken."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 01 2017, @12:57AM
Nothing depends on mosquitoes. They have caused billions of people to die.
We don't need a particular species of salamander or spotted owl, and losing one is no big deal. Losing all salamanders or all owls would kind of suck, so we should avoid that, but still it wouldn't be all that devastating. There are other predators that would benefit from the reduced competition and mostly make up for the loses.
Lots of animals are detrimental to humans (they need to die ASAP) or at least not beneficial (wouldn't miss them). There isn't enough room on this planet to keep everything.