Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday February 28 2017, @09:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the anti-jurassic-park dept.

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]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @11:04PM (4 children)

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Tuesday February 28 2017, @11:04PM (#473101)

    It doesn't really matter much. As the human population strains the carrying capacity of the (former) planet, other species get pushed out.

    I don't trust our ability to geo-engineer our way out of this mess, so preserving diversity where we can is likely a good thing. It may just give us enough room to adapt when things change.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:41AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:41AM (#473189)

    There's also the issue about what to do about species that haven't yet been discovered. The only way to preserve them is to keep changes to the environment slow and gradual enough that they can hold on or evolve.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:38PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:38PM (#473313)

    Well sure it matters, a lot of people depend on the Bos taurus species for work and milk and delicious food, its loss due to some species specific virus would be pretty tragic to humanity compared to losing the bacteria that gives people food poisoning when they eat poorly prepared taco bell or some minor bread mold.