Woolly Mammoth resurrection - I'll believe it when I see it . . .

LordSutch

Its been talked about for years and years, then three years ago Japanese scientists declared that they will resurrect the Wolly Mammoth by 2016 (provided they can extract enough intact DNA) from a frozen Mammoth carcase frozen in the siberian permafrost.
> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/japanese-researchers-plan-resurrect-woolly-mammoth-within-five-years

If it happens in 2016-17 it will certainly be an amazing achievement, but is it ethical? should it be done, should it be allowed? is it cruel?

Is this total pie in the sky, or can you really envisage looking at a real Wolly Mammoth in a Zoo in Japan within the next few years!

I guess the last time they saw us and we saw them (about 5000 years ago) we all had a lot more hair )

Phill Ewinn

Mammoth burgers. Kewl.

Duggy747

It'll probably just be an elephant with a bunch of brillo pads taped on.

Sneaky Japanese.

iDave

Life will find a way

crockholm

God knows,we've been responsible for more than our fair share of extinctions,so, if they can do it, put it in the empty debit column.

Yellowblackbird

It will need composite eye sockets that also shoot laser blasts. And preferably wings and a scorpion tail. If possible.

Deedsie

A Man-moth?







Always reminds me of Karl Pilkington

admiralofthefleet

where's ian malcolm when you need him

1ZRed

I hate fecking ethics, it slows everyone down just because some fuker doesn't want me having a wolly mammoth!

Give me my mammoth!!

BBDBB

Clever Girl

antodeco

Oh no, imagine what Ice Age 27 will be like. It will be like the Godzilla movie, except with Manny the the mammoth

RebelSoul

There was a really good article on de-extintion in this months National Geographic. Basically science is at a point where it can be done in theory. Should it be done not knowing how the animal can cope with todays climate/human interaction/disease and the ethics of it are all still being debated. Scientists are ego-maniacs though and this would a big vanity project. If they can do it they will absolutely do it.
What is known though is that they can have an important role to play in the eco system of the north east Siberia if they were restored there. Right now large areas of it are just a moss dominated tundra. Introducing Mammoths would transform it as they till the soil with their hooves and fertilize with their ****e.

Or maybe we should just stay the fcuk out of it as we've caused enough damage as is.

IM0

this is jurassaic news isnt it, Im off for a walk in the park to think about whether I like this idea or not

SEPT 23 1989

I thought that there would be a problem with oxygen levels or some sh1t

IM0

back! leave the poor bastard alone \I say, he will have no friends or any bitches to keep him busy :mad:

smash

LordSutch wrote: »

is it ethical? should it be done, should it be allowed? is it cruel?

Remove all religious reasoning and someone tell me why it's not ethical.

IM0 wrote: »

he will have no friends or any bitches to keep him busy :mad:

Give him an elephant, sure it's just a mammoth after a wax...

Dravokivich

I don't think it's a matter of ethics, but there is some element of a "God Complex," that needs to be assessed when it comes to such acts of science.

- What kind of habitat can be provided for it?
- What impact does this have regarding conservatism in place for the protection of endangered species?
- Does the animal become considered a product?

I think there can be benifit behind doing it and seeing if it works. But I think it's better to do it with something that'll fit with society today.

kylith

It sounds like a good idea but, really, what's the point in doing it? Because we can? Is it fair to create and raise an animal to be the only one of its kind, in an environment which it's not adapted to, for no reason other than we can?

TheIrishGrover

iDave wrote: »

Life will find a way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w-58hQ9dLk

Riddle101

Would we get one Mammoth, or a whole bunch? If it's just one, it seems a bit pointless because it will eventually die and we'll be back to zero. But if it's a whole bunch, they can be allowed to breed and reproduce. Then we can bring an entire species back to life again.

muppetkiller

I'd love to see this happen but I'd be more interested in them bringing back species that we've made extinct in the last 200-300 years like the Dodo or Tasmanian Tiger etc..

smash

Am I the only one thinking of all the new barbecue food possibilities?

I want them to bring back the Dodo. Supposedly they tasted great.

Dravokivich

smash wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking of all the new barbecue food possibilities?

We could really embrace a Paleo Diet styled on cavemen food with a wooly mammoth!

RebelSoul

smash wrote: »

Remove all religious reasoning and someone tell me why it's not ethical.

Because it's cruel. Using science to make some elephant mammoth retard animal purely for the sake of "Look what we can do". The tried it with The Bucardo and it didn't work.
Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't think it's a matter of ethics, but there is some element of a "God Complex," that needs to be assessed when it comes to such acts of science.

- What kind of habitat can be provided for it?
- What impact does this have regarding conservatism in place for the protection of endangered species?
- Does the animal become considered a product?

I think there can be benifit behind doing it and seeing if it works. But I think it's better to do it with something that'll fit with society today.

If it's the Japanese then yes. Main course mammoth steaks.

smash

smash wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking of all the new barbecue food possibilities?

Rack of Mammoth ribs!

Mammoth flavoured crisps!

kylith

Why would we want to bring back mammoths? Where would they live? The habitat they evolved for is gone, and anywhere you put them they'll be displacing animals which have evolved to fill those various niches over the last 10,000 years. It'd be like the Sparrowhawk all over again*.

Bring back newly extinct animals, or use preserved specimens to boost the numbers and genetic diversity of endangered species, but there's no point that I can see in bringing back such a large animal from so long ago.

* In the UK there was a huge Save the Sparrowhawk campaign, which was very successful, hooray. However now they're seeing a decrease in the number of sparrows, so there's a Save the Sparrows campaign. 10 points for guessing what Sparrowhawks like to eat.

Deedsie

Maybe if the Japanese have mammoth meat they might leave Whales alone...

Go for it!

Duckworth_Luas

Deleted User wrote: »

I want them to bring back the Dodo. Supposedly they tasted great.

By all accounts they were horrible, it was just that they were so easy to catch, basically 17th century convenience food.

It was the Galapagos giant tortoise that was so tasty that the sailors couldn't get living examples back to Europe, they'd eat them instead.

smash

RebelSoul wrote: »

Because it's cruel. Using science to make some elephant mammoth retard animal purely for the sake of "Look what we can do". The tried it with The Bucardo and it didn't work.

There are potentially massive scientific breakthroughs to be gained from an experiment of this kind.

RebelSoul wrote: »

Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

That's a bit obscure, even for the purpose of your argument.

Duckworth_Luas

kylith wrote: »

10 points for guessing what Sparrowhawks like to eat.

Mammoths?

kylith

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Mammoths?

That'd solve all our problems. Bring back the mammoths and feed them to the sparrowhawks so they'll leave the ikkle birdies alone.

crockholm

kylith wrote: »

Why would we want to bring back mammoths? Where would they live? The habitat they evolved for is gone, and anywhere you put them they'll be displacing animals which have evolved to fill those various niches over the last 10,000 years. It'd be like the Sparrowhawk all over again*.

Bring back newly extinct animals, or use preserved specimens to boost the numbers and genetic diversity of endangered species, but there's no point that I can see in bringing back such a large animal from so long ago.

* In the UK there was a huge Save the Sparrowhawk campaign, which was very successful, hooray. However now they're seeing a decrease in the number of sparrows, so there's a Save the Sparrows campaign. 10 points for guessing what Sparrowhawks like to eat.

Maybe they could live somewhere in Siberia or the Kamchatkan peninsula,I think the numbers would be controlled,but it could be a starting block to bring back other more recent species,and who knows even ensure the survival of the most critically endangered species of today

The Backwards Man

So are all extinct organisms going to get the same treatment or is it just the ugly hairy ones?

The likelihood of this ever happening is incredibly remote. They barely have success with cross breeding different kinds of elephants without the offspring dying in a few days.
In addition to that they tried to bring back the Pyrenean Ibex for it only to live for a couple of minutes before dying of lung defects.

1ZRed

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So are all extinct organisms going to get the same treatment or is it just the ugly hairy ones?

Well I hope they leave subo put when she finally keels over

smash

Sacramento wrote: »

In addition to that they tried to bring back the Pyrenean Ibex for it only to live for a couple of minutes before dying of lung defects.

Did they cook it?

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

FUCK YEAH!!

kylith

crockholm wrote: »

Maybe they could live somewhere in Siberia or the Kamchatkan peninsula,I think the numbers would be controlled,but it could be a starting block to bring back other more recent species,and who knows even ensure the survival of the most critically endangered species of today

Right, so you have a tiny group of animals with practically zero genetic diversity after the first generation, leading to horrific genetic defects after a few generations, displacing the local fauna. We know nothing about how mammoths lived, whether they migrated, social structure, or anything like that. How would they be kept confined? How much space do they need? Would that habitat even be suitable for them?

I'd be delighted for scientists to get to the stage of "if we implanted this in an elephant ovum it'd grow into a mammoth*", but I don't think they should actually do it.

* Barring spontaneous abortion when the surrogate's immune system attacks the alien genetic material.

RebelSoul

smash wrote: »

There are potentially massive scientific breakthroughs to be gained from an experiment of this kind.


That's a bit obscure, even for the purpose of your argument.

Well please don't tease. Tell us about these potentially massive scientific breakthroughs.

I'll agree to disagree on the second point.

smash

smash wrote: »

Did they cook it?

I'm sure they gave it a good auld poke with a stick for a while after.

Antar Bolaeisk

RebelSoul wrote: »

Would you be ok to stick an extinct monkeys egg into a womans womb?

I think they're looking for volunteers to give birth to a neanderthal. So long as the volunteer is happy to go ahead with it I don't see the problem.

No problem with it whatsoever. It's a massive step forward and we could learn how to undo a lot that we've done.

1ZRed

Deleted User wrote: »

No problem with it whatsoever. It's a massive step forward and we could learn how to undo a lot that we've done.

It devalues life in one sense, though. People will care less about conservation because they think it can all be replaced sometime in future.

Unless vital to an ecosystem, I wouldn't be mad to try and bring back certain species if there's no proper habitat left for them anymore.

RebelSoul

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

I think they're looking for volunteers to give birth to a neanderthal. So long as the volunteer is happy to go ahead with it I don't see the problem.

No they are not. That was an incorrect story that went viral due to mis-translation of quotes and lazy media not checking sources.
I do agree though that if a volunteer is mentally and physically sound then that's their choice. However an elephant does not have a choice to be the host. It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

Yitzhak Rabin

RebelSoul wrote: »

No they are not. That was an incorrect story that went viral due to mis-translation of quotes and lazy media not checking sources.
I do agree though that if a volunteer is mentally and physically sound then that's their choice. However an elephant does not have a choice to be the host. It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

1ZRed

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

There is less than 5% neanderthal DNA in us, that's largely due to us splitting from the same gene pool so we have DNA in common, on either side.

There's also doubt that neanderthals interbred with us. If they were brought back they would not be homosapien or "human", as they are a different subspecies. We experiment freely on humans as it is so I see no problem doing the same to them either.

Seachmall

RebelSoul wrote: »

It's being forced to perform something unnatural.

Utility rooms don't exist "naturally" yet my dogs are being forced to sleep in them at night.

Is this unethical?

RebelSoul

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What about the neanderthal that would be born tho? Are they human, do they have human rights, should scientists be allowed conduct experiments on them?

That's a good point. Not one I heard debated when that story about the neanderthal baby was running. Although I might have missed it. It all starts to get a little too nazi scientist for me when talk of experiments is introduced.

LordSutch

kylith wrote: »

Right, so you have a tiny group of animals with practically zero genetic diversity after the first generation, leading to horrific genetic defects after a few generations, displacing the local fauna. We know nothing about how mammoths lived, whether they migrated, social structure, or anything like that. How would they be kept confined? How much space do they need? Would that habitat even be suitable for them?

I'd be delighted for scientists to get to the stage of "if we implanted this in an elephant ovum it'd grow into a mammoth*", but I don't think they should actually do it.

* Barring spontaneous abortion when the surrogate's immune system attacks the alien genetic material.

Very interesting post that^

> > > http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/14-extinct-animals-that-could-be-resurrected/woolly-mammoth

RebelSoul

Seachmall wrote: »

Utility rooms don't exist "naturally" yet my dogs are being forced to sleep in them at night.

Is this unethical?

I noticed you deleted your previous post. But I would like to address it. My point is it would be unnatural in the course of the elephants life. Which is not the same as "defying the laws of nature" as you put it.
Technically everything on this planet can be traced back to nature.

I doubt your dogs are "forced" to sleep there. I'm sure it's an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. If they are being forced to do it against their will however than it would certainly be unpleasant for them. In that case it would be unethical.
You have raised interesting point though and not one I had deliberated on previously.