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This discussion has been archived.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 Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:40PM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:40PM (#473371)

    The free-market also creates waste. I suspect that society is over-producing disposable crap at the moment. While short life cycles are good for innovating, it also consumes extra resources to replace something that could otherwise be repaired.

    The free-market is actually biased against things that can be re-used. A good example is rechargeable batteries. At least in AA size, NiMH cells tend to have longer run-time (in high-drain devices anyway) than their disposable alkaline counterparts (which have the advantage of holding a charge for up to 5 years). Next time you are in a store: check how much shelf space is dedicated to the disposable vs rechargeable cells. Even though the rechargeable cells may cost 5x as much, they don't bring in a lot of revenue. The reason is that you buy the cells once, and don't have to come back for like 5 years (or however long 1000 charge cycles take) unless you happen to lose the things.