It's pretty improbable that humans were the only cause of mammoth extinction. Quite frankly, I'm of the "opinion" that, if the already-occurring Pleistocene megafaunal extinction didn't, by complete happenstance, coincide with the arrival of humans - IE, mammoths only had to deal with one or the other - they would still be around today. You said it yourself. Mammoths filled the same ecological role as elephants. And yet, we still have elephants because Africa was relatively unscathed by the Pleistocene megafaunal extinction.
Even if they revive the issue would be more and more tougher. I mean certain characteristics are built through culture of the creature, and thats not including changing environmental crisis and microbial issues they would face.
For a short answer, I say give it a shot. But don’t get your hopes up. While the ‘Play God’ debate doesn’t sound so one sided, I’ve heard about a ‘life finds a way’ possibility that this practice can bring forth a new disease to humanity. Which to me the possible new disease sounds like ‘why not’
@@GODZILLA2915 For sure! There's a chance of negative affects of any new science, even in medicine, lots of things have gone wrong but through trial and error, our life spans are almost three times longer now thanks to medicinal science, despite mistakes that were made along the way.
@@adrianklianis1278 Depends on what those extreme potential consequences are. Depends on whether the research is done beforehand. In the case of the animals mentioned in the video, the negative potential impacts aren't very significant, it either works or it doesn't. Not doing everything we can to prevent the melting of permafrost would have absolutely dire consequences though. If the permafrost melts, it won't matter what other actions are taken to prevent climate change
Great video, really balanced and thought provoking. I think responsible de-extinction is something we owe the planet considering humans are quite often the ones who made it necessary.
@@bryanfarrell2029 Thanks Bryan! Yeah I think in the instances where we're responsible then we should look at the possibility and potential impacts of de-extinction!
For a species gone extinct through natural circumstances with no foreign involvement, thats nature and should be left as fossils. For a species our actions caused extinction then it's our obligation to do everything we can to right the wrong we created. My opinion in a brief description anyway. I always shed a tear for the thylacine.
@EcologyNerd, Could you please upload a video about rewilding Japan and recreating the Japanese Serengeti? I would much love to see wolves roam the Japanese ecosystem once again!!
I am very philosophically and scientifically opposed to proxy rewilding. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice, it often ignores the myriad ecological complexities that inherently and necessarily follow dropping animals into a new environment, even if similar ones once dwelt there. There are a few legitimate success stories of proxy animals organically filling the shoes of extinct species - _mostly by accident, such as with dingoes_ - but most of the time, the best you can hope for is an unsustainable population that'd go extinct without regular human aid, and the worst is them becoming just another invasive species to worry about.
For 1 thing it can help recover the genetic diversity of extant species who have experienced a bottleneck. Uses for extinct species are a bit less clear. There needs to be a strong ethical argument over depleting the finality and significance of extinction. Evolution, extinction and adaptation has been happening for a billion years and for us to suddenly tamper with these processes warrants some opposition. Some may argue for the need to counter human caused extinctions which like human exacerbated climate change is not natural. Once again though human caused or not it has gone extinct and countering this changes the whole weight of what extinction means. 1 thing is for sure we are moving too fast with de-extinction and not enough thinking has gone into it. There is no definitive answer of whether it’s bad or good or where it should be used or not but we certainly have not done the right amount of thinking yet.
As philosophical as this entire conversation is; I felt very hopeful and encouraged from watching Jurassic World Dominion, that presented the character arc and legacy of Charlotte and Maisie Lockwood as the philosophical, maternal antithesis and synthesis of the trauma Ian Malcolm and Alan Grant experienced from understandably being chased by the predators like the T-Rex. For me, the larger picture should always be the health, history, and balance of ecosystems along with our global ecosystem. The ongoing work in Pleistocene park also encourages me, the consideration the Russian family operating it have taken, and are continually documenting. A nice exercise I think to consider is mapping the entire food web and ecosystem processes of a native ecosystem that historically housed a now extinct animal, let alone habitat and ecosystem like the mammoth steppe. For the passenger pigeon, it was the eastern North American hardwood forests that also included eastern elk, (which Manitoban elk in the Smokies have happily taken the surrogate role), the American red wolf as a terrestrial pack hunting Apex predator, and the eastern cougar/mountain lion of which the Florida Panthers are a holdover of. I have also heard on the animal logic videos that Whitetail deer herds are often overpopulated in the eastern US in Canada without the native predators chasing and hunting them besides black bears, and surviving wolf territory with the eastern Timberwolf. For the woolly mammoth and the mammoth step, there are still reindeer/Caribou, boreal and Arctic moose, wolf packs, muskoxen, wolverines, and either brown bears or polar bears. Let this be the continuation of the conversation, and I choose the spiritual moral of Charlotte Lockwood over the empathetic trauma of Ian Malcolm.
@@paladintrueknight I honestly don't know about human cloning but you're probably right! Mammoths and Thylacine are being worked on though and have been given the go ahead so legally it's not an issue in those cases
For animals that recently went extinct like aurochs thylacenes, passenger pigeons, and atlas bears, I would say it is ecological great for conservation taurus cattle themselves have drastically improved biodiversity but the downside is that poachers might see this as an excuse to double down on rare and endangered species since they can just be brought back
@@RomulusTheWild6693 Yeah that's true and that's another battle for conservation in itself! You would hope that any de-extinct animal would be well protected though until populations are well established
I just hope that media literacy on the topic improves so we don’t get more people either asking for or making comparisons to Jurassic Park. Like, even the original JP has a section where they draw the distinction between creatures killed off by human activity and those like the non-avian dinosaurs that died out due to natural forces.
@@GallowglassVT Yeah, de-extinction to undo the harm we have done and benefit ecosystems is a completely different thing than bringing back animals because it's cool! Hopefully the right people can spread the word 🤞
@@canonbehenna612 So many but don't think any others are really being worked on. To restore the mammoth steppe, Woolly Rhinos would be brilliant. To open up forests in South America and disperse large seeds, either of the extinct elephantids there would likely be hugely beneficial
It's basically been done already with breeding, I don't see why it shouldn't be done with extinct animals. Especially mammoths, a proxy isn't really possible so to have the same ecological benefits you'd need to either dress elephants in warm clothes or make mammoths.
It's pretty improbable that humans were the only cause of mammoth extinction. Quite frankly, I'm of the "opinion" that, if the already-occurring Pleistocene megafaunal extinction didn't, by complete happenstance, coincide with the arrival of humans - IE, mammoths only had to deal with one or the other - they would still be around today.
You said it yourself. Mammoths filled the same ecological role as elephants. And yet, we still have elephants because Africa was relatively unscathed by the Pleistocene megafaunal extinction.
I just personally find it kind of goofy when they set a specific "date" as to when these species are supposed to be revived...
Even if they revive the issue would be more and more tougher. I mean certain characteristics are built through culture of the creature, and thats not including changing environmental crisis and microbial issues they would face.
For a short answer, I say give it a shot. But don’t get your hopes up.
While the ‘Play God’ debate doesn’t sound so one sided, I’ve heard about a ‘life finds a way’ possibility that this practice can bring forth a new disease to humanity.
Which to me the possible new disease sounds like ‘why not’
@@GODZILLA2915 For sure! There's a chance of negative affects of any new science, even in medicine, lots of things have gone wrong but through trial and error, our life spans are almost three times longer now thanks to medicinal science, despite mistakes that were made along the way.
@@Eco-NerdDoes that justify going forward with practices that we know could have extreme consequences?
@@adrianklianis1278 Depends on what those extreme potential consequences are. Depends on whether the research is done beforehand.
In the case of the animals mentioned in the video, the negative potential impacts aren't very significant, it either works or it doesn't. Not doing everything we can to prevent the melting of permafrost would have absolutely dire consequences though. If the permafrost melts, it won't matter what other actions are taken to prevent climate change
Great video, really balanced and thought provoking. I think responsible de-extinction is something we owe the planet considering humans are quite often the ones who made it necessary.
@@bryanfarrell2029 Thanks Bryan! Yeah I think in the instances where we're responsible then we should look at the possibility and potential impacts of de-extinction!
For a species gone extinct through natural circumstances with no foreign involvement, thats nature and should be left as fossils.
For a species our actions caused extinction then it's our obligation to do everything we can to right the wrong we created. My opinion in a brief description anyway. I always shed a tear for the thylacine.
@@FromTheGong That's exactly my stance on the matter as well!
Thylacine was(hopefully is) just such a cool animal
@EcologyNerd, Could you please upload a video about rewilding Japan and recreating the Japanese Serengeti?
I would much love to see wolves roam the Japanese ecosystem once again!!
@@arkprice79 I'll add it to my list 😊
@@Eco-Nerd Thank you
Japan has a huge problem with the overgrazing of deer
@@arkprice79blame ur government for being an ignorant who doesn't care about ur fucking wolves
That would be cool. Yes please!
I am very philosophically and scientifically opposed to proxy rewilding. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice, it often ignores the myriad ecological complexities that inherently and necessarily follow dropping animals into a new environment, even if similar ones once dwelt there.
There are a few legitimate success stories of proxy animals organically filling the shoes of extinct species - _mostly by accident, such as with dingoes_ - but most of the time, the best you can hope for is an unsustainable population that'd go extinct without regular human aid, and the worst is them becoming just another invasive species to worry about.
For 1 thing it can help recover the genetic diversity of extant species who have experienced a bottleneck. Uses for extinct species are a bit less clear. There needs to be a strong ethical argument over depleting the finality and significance of extinction. Evolution, extinction and adaptation has been happening for a billion years and for us to suddenly tamper with these processes warrants some opposition. Some may argue for the need to counter human caused extinctions which like human exacerbated climate change is not natural. Once again though human caused or not it has gone extinct and countering this changes the whole weight of what extinction means. 1 thing is for sure we are moving too fast with de-extinction and not enough thinking has gone into it. There is no definitive answer of whether it’s bad or good or where it should be used or not but we certainly have not done the right amount of thinking yet.
As philosophical as this entire conversation is; I felt very hopeful and encouraged from watching Jurassic World Dominion, that presented the character arc and legacy of Charlotte and Maisie Lockwood as the philosophical, maternal antithesis and synthesis of the trauma Ian Malcolm and Alan Grant experienced from understandably being chased by the predators like the T-Rex.
For me, the larger picture should always be the health, history, and balance of ecosystems along with our global ecosystem.
The ongoing work in Pleistocene park also encourages me, the consideration the Russian family operating it have taken, and are continually documenting.
A nice exercise I think to consider is mapping the entire food web and ecosystem processes of a native ecosystem that historically housed a now extinct animal, let alone habitat and ecosystem like the mammoth steppe.
For the passenger pigeon, it was the eastern North American hardwood forests that also included eastern elk, (which Manitoban elk in the Smokies have happily taken the surrogate role), the American red wolf as a terrestrial pack hunting Apex predator, and the eastern cougar/mountain lion of which the Florida Panthers are a holdover of.
I have also heard on the animal logic videos that Whitetail deer herds are often overpopulated in the eastern US in Canada without the native predators chasing and hunting them besides black bears, and surviving wolf territory with the eastern Timberwolf.
For the woolly mammoth and the mammoth step, there are still reindeer/Caribou, boreal and Arctic moose, wolf packs, muskoxen, wolverines, and either brown bears or polar bears.
Let this be the continuation of the conversation, and I choose the spiritual moral of Charlotte Lockwood over the empathetic trauma of Ian Malcolm.
I like learning something when my thoughts/opinions have been challenged & even changed.
i want cave lions brought back in Pleistocene park. they already have well preserved dna
@@hamza4334 That would be amazing!
That would be amazing
Why?
Because they would cause ecosystem stability by keeping herbivore levels at a level allowing for varied biomes by maintaining grazing
I'm not sure if it will remain legal. Isn't human cloning banned in the countries that have the scientific community for it?
@@paladintrueknight I honestly don't know about human cloning but you're probably right! Mammoths and Thylacine are being worked on though and have been given the go ahead so legally it's not an issue in those cases
For animals that recently went extinct like aurochs thylacenes, passenger pigeons, and atlas bears, I would say it is ecological great for conservation taurus cattle themselves have drastically improved biodiversity but the downside is that poachers might see this as an excuse to double down on rare and endangered species since they can just be brought back
@@RomulusTheWild6693 Yeah that's true and that's another battle for conservation in itself! You would hope that any de-extinct animal would be well protected though until populations are well established
future video idea:
Rewilding and recreating South American Serengeti
@@Nael. Thanks! It's on my list 😊
I just hope that media literacy on the topic improves so we don’t get more people either asking for or making comparisons to Jurassic Park. Like, even the original JP has a section where they draw the distinction between creatures killed off by human activity and those like the non-avian dinosaurs that died out due to natural forces.
@@GallowglassVT Yeah, de-extinction to undo the harm we have done and benefit ecosystems is a completely different thing than bringing back animals because it's cool! Hopefully the right people can spread the word 🤞
Other choices: megalenia,Madagascar extinct lemurs,Moa,Japanese wolfs and so much more
@@canonbehenna612 Yeah those would be amazing!
@@Eco-Nerd thanks any others that would be good
@@canonbehenna612 So many but don't think any others are really being worked on. To restore the mammoth steppe, Woolly Rhinos would be brilliant. To open up forests in South America and disperse large seeds, either of the extinct elephantids there would likely be hugely beneficial
There's a reason nature let species go why try bringing back extinction happen for a reason 🤔
@@deatherutts The reasons are given in the video 😊
why de-extinct when we can create new megafauna
That's what deextinction is, creating new megafauna that look and partially act like extinct species.
Infamous
It's basically been done already with breeding, I don't see why it shouldn't be done with extinct animals. Especially mammoths, a proxy isn't really possible so to have the same ecological benefits you'd need to either dress elephants in warm clothes or make mammoths.
@@bardroyal Yeah I definitely agree with that!
I don't have a problem with it I hope Professor Andrew Pask can do it.😃
@@jennyshimmen430 me too 🙏
Man this video is insanly good!! I'll use your exemple in my work as a naturalist guide! Thanks ❤️🦣🦬🐂🐎🐆🦕
@@ericklendenh8479 That's a really nice thing to hear!! Thank you 🙏 🙏
@@ericklendenh8479 he's the Irish David Attenborough