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 VLM on Wednesday March 01 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)
just as introduced species so often do around the world today.
That brings up three interesting points
The tundra was mammoth-compatible 20K years ago but the presence of 2017-era wolves might make it incompatible
In the old days species introductions often led to permanent elimination of a species, but the whole point of this is it'll "merely" be expensive to have them pop alive again at the spawn point after a modest delay. If they're cute and furry and not ugly nematodes or giant killer centipedes. So this might lead to lax attitudes (ah, dump these chinese carp in the lake what do I care someone else will pay to resurrect the walleye fish its not like they'll be extinct)
The third point is I could totally see one of the Koreas either best Korea or the other one growing meter long killer centipedes to keep on the leash at the DMZ and that can only lead to problems. If you though Hannibal and the elephants was a hell of a story two millennia ago try some dude sending a stampede of mammoths against modern armor.... if you can sneak up on a M1A1 and put a mammoth foot thru it, its toast, but its going to be tricky to sneak up... normally combined arms infantry would smell or see the mammoths before they step on you but the one meter long killer centipedes suppressed and routed the infantry so they're in panic retreat two miles that way and you can hear the stomping feet inside your tank so they're out there but you don't know where and the opfor is scaring you by pushing cars off roofs to make mammoth like crashing sounds and they have more scrap cars than you have main gun rounds so this is going to be interesting.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:59PM
Fun... my basic rule for the smallish scale phenomenon (including Mammophant and killerpede creation) is: if it can happen, it will.
Hard to predict how widespread they will become, as you say - wolves and other established species will make random drops of crazy creatures unlikely to flourish, but every so often one will and then you've got your next Nutria rat, Kudzu, Fire Ant, Killer Bee, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]