|
Post by gwangi on Jan 21, 2011 3:39:28 GMT
How do we know humans or other humanoids didn't drive mammoths to extinction ? My thoughts exactly. And so what if the animal is confined to a zoo, so are many other animals. It has to be better than being permanently extinct right?
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 21, 2011 5:18:17 GMT
How do we know humans or other humanoids didn't drive mammoths to extinction ? There is research on that aspect already. Bringing back a mammoth won't answer that question anyways. And what if humans didn't? I don't think mammoths will be coming back with these "researchers" as they are nobodies in the field and don't even have a game plan. They haven't thought out some major questions, but they can do it... always a good sign of a good plan. Zoos can barely afford to take care of the animals they have now. Parks in India are guarding tiger sanctuaries with no tigers in them. Millions of cats and dogs are killed each year because no one wants them. The list goes on. Just because humans control the natural world doesn't mean they should or are even doing a good job at it and lots of times they fail miserably at it. "I wanna see one because it's cool" is a poor reason. Lots of animals in zoos have behavioral problems - they is plenty of research to prove this. I don't think animals should exist to solely please humans or to be the latest fad. Habitat loss, doing more with what we already have... no one mentions these things. It seems to me the pros for this is: give me my cheap thrill at the expense on the animal (mammoth in this case) and after I've seen it a few times hurry up with a dinosaurs because the mammoth is getting boring already.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 21, 2011 5:24:28 GMT
And so what if the animal is confined to a zoo, so are many other animals. It has to be better than being permanently extinct right? What a cold statement. Here's one for you: So what if your house burns down, and all your dino toys burn up. Lots of peoples houses burn down. At least you didn't burn up in the fire right?
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Jan 21, 2011 11:35:52 GMT
/\ Hur, hur, 'cold'. Speaking of Thylacines, has any headway been made with that thylacine cloning project in Australia? I haven't heard anything about it in years. It might still be going on, just not in the news.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 21, 2011 12:28:47 GMT
And so what if the animal is confined to a zoo, so are many other animals. It has to be better than being permanently extinct right? What a cold statement. Here's one for you: So what if your house burns down, and all your dino toys burn up. Lots of peoples houses burn down. At least you didn't burn up in the fire right? I can count my dinosaur figures on both hands, I'm here more to talk about paleontology than I am toys as it would turn out. I know that's not the point, just saying. I get what you're saying regarding the current state of zoos and the over abundance of dogs and cats but what does that have to do with cloning a mammoth? The choice to bring back a mammoth has no effect on any of that, things will remain the same regardless. I will admit it, I want to see a mammoth for selfish reasons but if we can bring back a small population and they can survive I don't see how this is anything but good for a species that was previously extinct, regardless if it is kept in captivity or not.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 21, 2011 21:35:30 GMT
^^^ Those two examples (there are thousands more) was to show our lack of truly understanding the needs of the animals we already keep. We have a very hard time of reproducing natural behavior in zoos and we know these animals from the wild. Cloning a mammoth would tell us nothing of their natural behavior or how they were. It is not possible to learn that from cloning them. It was also to show the disposable attitude we take towards animals. (But lets not worry about that or try to learn more about what we already have - entertain me!!!! ) "things will remain the same regardless." So again no other benefit to cloning a mammoth other than selfishness. Would it not be better to NOT clone a mammoth and instead be more aware/appreacited of what we already have? Or to fix some of the problems the natural world already faces? (Wouldn't it be "cool" if we could put wings on tigers so they could swoop down for the kill? The original tigers would become boring and who cares really about their habitat now - we made better ones that now live in bird cages! It's a win-win situation right? ) Humans are poor judges of what is "good" for other species. Humans choose things that are "good" for them and come up with poor excuses to justify "the benefits" to the animals. What if it is bad for other species? What if the mammoth can host a virus that will not kill it but would kill off another closely related species? Your last argument is akin to the it is better to die in a plane crash than to have never flown at all argument?
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 21, 2011 21:58:05 GMT
^^^ "things will remain the same regardless." So again no other benefit to cloning a mammoth other than selfishness. Would it not be better to NOT clone a mammoth and instead be more aware/appreacited of what we already have? Or to fix some of the problems the natural world already faces? I guess if we were forced to choose between the two than fixing what we have left would of course be the better option but I have yet to see anyone tell us we need to make that choice. You make it sound like the people who want to clone this thing are the same one's responsible for public outreach and environmental conservation but they aren't , if they aren't attempting to clone a mammoth they are likely in a lab somewhere doing something equally useless. Based on what you're saying we shouldn't explore the solar system, or dig up animals that have been extinct for 100 million years because...well...there are more important things we should be focused on. Is that how you feel? Should paleontologists stop gouging out the surface of the earth and arguing over the name of some obscure extinct mollusk? Should they instead work in wildlife conservation, renewable resources, public outreach? I mean, why bother with dead dinosaurs when we have live ones that require more attention right? For that matter us having this conversation and spending out money on plastic extinct animals is equally worthless. Why are we not spending that time and money to save real life dinosaurs? The argument you outlined for not cloning a mammoth can be used for anything. Yup, we do choose what is good for us. That's why we're wasting energy on these computers talking on a toy forum in our houses built on precious ecosystems. Don't be hypocritical. I didn't think of that but on that same note mammoths are extinct and lived during a time when all our current species did as well...and they're still here. When cloning a mammoth is it even possible to bring back a virus with it? I honestly don't know, sounds like a good book though.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 21, 2011 22:26:34 GMT
If I'm not mistaken its most likely humans were not responsible for the mammoth's extinction. Supposedly our ancestors were eating mostly smaller game, yeah sure we killed mammoths but not nearly as much as most people are lead to believe. Mammoths probably died out because of climate change just like a lot of other ice age megafauna and neaderthals.
Honestly I really am unsure if they will be able to pull off cloning this thing. We have a hard enough time successfully cloning domestic animals.
About this little debate, I totally agree with Gwangi in this. Not every profession in the world can be geared towards saving the world. I'm pretty sure everything in paleontology is done just because its interesting. No cloning a mammoth won't save the world. Its not destroying it either though.
Also, I work in the zoo business. Blastoidea, from what I read you are not giving zoos enough credit.
"I don't think animals should exist to solely please humans or to be the latest fad. Habitat loss, doing more with what we already have... no one mentions these things. It seems to me the pros for this is: give me my cheap thrill at the expense on the animal (mammoth in this case) and after I've seen it a few times hurry up with a dinosaurs because the mammoth is getting boring already."
Really? This isn't the early 1900s anymore, you know. Zoo's goals are to educate and stir up concern/interest in wildlife conservation more than anything else. You make it sound like we don't care about our animals and only care about money. If that were the case we wouldn't be working at zoos. So... if there was a mammoth people would lose interest and stop going to see it...just like they do with modern animals at zoos that get crowds and crowds of people to begin with...?
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 21, 2011 23:16:36 GMT
We make that choice everyday. Lots of naturalist have clearly stated we have a choice to make and we are in control of the outcome (not specific to cloning, but to the greater issues). There are lots of examples this. David Attenborough would be a easy one to see, but there are many more. Regardless what you might believe there is not unlimited resources and manpower to control the natural world. If humans don't maintain their creation lots of the systems would fail. See Central Park, NYC. It is artificial, costs lots to maintain and would break down without human maintenance. Lots of systems are being completely ignored and are failing right now. The point is do we need more when we don't take care of what we have now?
I never said science and understanding are unimportant. True understanding is critical. Using that understanding and applying it to conservation or other matters is vital. Obviously, understanding dinosaurs and digging them up can be applied to our understanding of the modern natural world and evolution etc... and is NOT useless. Humans also need a break and rest to function properly, quit going to extremes.
A side show for money, or ego or to please the masses whim is another matter. If the cloning group said here is our plan, we did an 5 year environmental assessment on the area we plan to release the mammoths. We had experts in many fields debate the issues/ethics it might be a different story. But this "group" doesn't even know if they should charge admission - come on - they are about their careers and money, plain and simple and don't care about anything else or if there will be consequences.
Your last statement is not true. Mammoths lived in Canada where deer are now. That species of deer did not live with mammoths. Deer and moose are a good example of a virus that kills one species (moose) but doesn't kill the other (deer). Deer expansion is increasing because of that and the fact that humans have altered the landscape. Deer are doing well as an unintended consequence of human actions, NOT because of them. The problem is you don't know how virus' will react.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jan 21, 2011 23:36:47 GMT
Zoo's goals are to educate and stir up concern/interest in wildlife conservation more than anything else. I do agree with this. I was almost going to touch on it earlier myself. And good zoos don't only generate interest in, but are engaged in active conservation too. I don't think we ought to caricature Blastoidea's arguments though. I don't think he is at all suggesting that scientific ventures which are prompted by interest alone are worthless or should not be attempted. And I don't think sarcasm and casual charges of hypocrisy will do much good to a debate. Tea, gentlemen? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 22, 2011 0:07:11 GMT
"And good zoos don't only generate interest in, but are engaged in active conservation too."
Correct
"We make that choice everyday. Lots of naturalist have clearly stated we have a choice to make and we are in control of the outcome (not specific to cloning, but to the greater issues). There are lots of examples this. David Attenborough would be a easy one to see, but there are many more. Regardless what you might believe there is not unlimited resources and manpower to control the natural world. If humans don't maintain their creation lots of the systems would fail. See Central Park, NYC. It is artificial, costs lots to maintain and would break down without human maintenance. Lots of systems are being completely ignored and are failing right now. The point is do we need more when we don't take care of what we have now?"
Sure I agree with all of that. I don't see how having a living mammoth is going to make it worse though.
"I never said science and understanding are unimportant. True understanding is critical. Using that understanding and applying it to conservation or other matters is vital. Obviously, understanding dinosaurs and digging them up can be applied to our understanding of the modern natural world and evolution etc... and is NOT useless. Humans also need a break and rest to function properly, quit going to extremes."
Yes. So again, how is that different from making a living mammoth?
"A side show for money, or ego or to please the masses whim is another matter. If the cloning group said here is our plan, we did an 5 year environmental assessment on the area we plan to release the mammoths. We had experts in many fields debate the issues/ethics it might be a different story. But this "group" doesn't even know if they should charge admission - come on - they are about their careers and money, plain and simple and don't care about anything else or if there will be consequences."
Do you know enough to say that's true or not?
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 0:24:04 GMT
Griffin - I never said there is one worthwhile profession and everything else is useless.
Read the peer-reviewed studies on zoo animal behavior and the known short comings that still exist. Zoos have been charged with neglect of animals. There are accountants and lawyers at zoo who care about money more than education. Not every zoo can afford to do the right thing. Not all zoo's have this goal. I could go on... I didn't say every zoo was bad either, but you implying every zoo is good is propaganda just as if I were to imply every zoo was bad. And all these same issues will relate to cloning a mammoth.
I would like to discuss this more, but I have other life matters (no I'm not saving the world) that need to get done. I think there is more to the issue than "it would be cool to see". There are ethics and lawyers and politics and lots we still don't understand about the natural world and all it's interactions. Lowest common denominator science sucks though, which is what I think this group is about. Presented in a different way and clearly defined I might think differently about it.
Himmapaan - I agree that some zoos do good things (run by good people). Our closest zoo does the reptile and amphibian monitoring and educates the public on them (natives) and it is a great thing for many reasons. Zoos can and have done the wrong thing though as well, probably/hopefully, because no one spoke up and questioned their motives and reasoning. (I did try to limit the sarcasm to quickly further a point or to deflect others tactics that aren't good to debate as well. Don't think anyone abused it though.) Cheers
Edit: Sorry Griffin I have to be quick.
Do we need more when we don't do a great job now with what we have? (It is a question to ponder, there will be many different answers. They can be related back to the issue of cloning and it's motives and if carried out how so etc...)
It was a reply to gwangi to clarify.
Read the "news story". No mention of where it will be kept/enviromental assessments etc..., if they will display/not display hasn't even been figured out yet. This is a race to be the first (ego). Ego makes for poor science. Ego makes educating everyone an after thought.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 22, 2011 1:14:44 GMT
"Read the peer-reviewed studies on zoo animal behavior and the known short comings that still exist. Zoos have been charged with neglect of animals. There are accountants and lawyers at zoo who care about money more than education. Not every zoo can afford to do the right thing. Not all zoo's have this goal. I could go on... I didn't say every zoo was bad either, but you implying every zoo is good is propaganda just as if I were to imply every zoo was bad. And all these same issues will relate to cloning a mammoth."
I am fully aware that everything including zoos has flaws. Thats why we have inspections. And some facilities fail inspections and are corrected. It happens. But I really think the pros outweigh the cons with regards to both the animal's welfare and wildlife conservation when the zoo is being run correctly and there is no reason why a credible zoo wouldn't be able to successfully take care of a mammoth if one were ever to be cloned.
"I would like to discuss this more, but I have other life matters (no I'm not saving the world) that need to get done. I think there is more to the issue than "it would be cool to see". There are ethics and lawyers and politics and lots we still don't understand about the natural world and all it's interactions. Lowest common denominator science sucks though, which is what I think this group is about. Presented in a different way and clearly defined I might think differently about it."
I really think you are looking at this with a very extreme and assuming the worst kind of attitude. First of all nobody even knows if this cloning will even be successful. I'm sure there is plenty more to this story than what they tell us in that one article.
"Do we need more when we don't do a great job now with what we have?"
Regardless who it was meant for. Its not true. Many facilities do a great job with what they have which is why I said what i did before.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jan 22, 2011 1:22:40 GMT
OK. Lets put aside the dubious ability of today's scientists to pull this off (the Japanese were trying to do this a few years ago but gave up when they couldn't get a good DNA sample - their best chance turned out to be a rhino foot instead of a mammoth foot.)
Lets say they clone a Woolly Mammoth. First off, it would look like an Indian elephant with reddish hair and a raised forehead - come to think of it, just put some fur on one of the freakishly huge Nepalese Asian elephants that were once thought to be mammoths because of their high foreheads that (re)developed due to genetic isolation - but that's another story.
We know from fossil sites that Mammoth herds resembled other elephant herds in that they were headed by a mature female with other females and immature males making up the rest of the herd.
If you introduced this animal into an Indian elephant herd as a baby, it would grow up and be quite happy with its cousins. (One would have to wonder if cross-breeding would be possible, but then we want a pure mammoth.) It would not be an isolated outcast at all.
So, it really would NOT be akin to bringing back a TRex. It would be just another Asian-type elephant with fur. And probably would be quite happy at the San Diego Zoo with the balmy but not-too-hot climate. It would be a quantum leap for science if they pulled it off.
As far doing as it "for the money", well, where do you think that money comes from to fund research and development? Not out of a magic hat. Sometimes from the taxpayers' pockets and sometimes from business pockets.
In either case there HAS to be either a profit motive or a further use to benefit the public down the road because otherwise there would be NO funding for any research (military R & D backing is out because we no longer need battle mammoths.)
That is the way the world works. As John Lennon once said "That's reality."
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 3:18:17 GMT
^^^ You do not know if they will except a matrilineally unrelated member. Some do and some don't. Money doesn't come from a magic hat? OH NO!?! Well at least it still grows on trees!
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Jan 22, 2011 3:32:44 GMT
Didn't they discover a few years back that baby mammoths needed bacteria from their mother's dung? I wonder how they'll work that one out.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 22, 2011 3:33:04 GMT
We make that choice everyday. Lots of naturalist have clearly stated we have a choice to make and we are in control of the outcome (not specific to cloning, but to the greater issues). There are lots of examples this. David Attenborough would be a easy one to see, but there are many more. Regardless what you might believe there is not unlimited resources and manpower to control the natural world. If humans don't maintain their creation lots of the systems would fail. See Central Park, NYC. It is artificial, costs lots to maintain and would break down without human maintenance. Lots of systems are being completely ignored and are failing right now. The point is do we need more when we don't take care of what we have now? I am aware of what you're saying and agree with it. I just don't see how having a mammoth around or not would make any difference. What is the difference between any of this and cloning a mammoth? A cloned mammoth would both increase our understanding of evolution and the world AND give people something to see and get a brake from life etc. etc. You really don't know that, you're getting this from an article published by our notoriously bad media, the same that claims pterosaurus are dinosaurs. I'm sure any cloned mammoth will receive excellent care, admission fees will do doubt pay for the huge cost of cloning a mammoth to start with. WHAT??? None of this sounds familiar to me. If you have sources please share them. What species of deer specifically did not live with mammoths? What species is killing off moose? Is it native or non-native? If non-native then where is it from? What do the short comings of a specific zoo and it's employees have to do with cloning a mammoth? You're basically saying that we cannot clone a mammoth because every zoo in the world isn't perfect...that isn't even a reachable goal. Again I say the addition of mammoths to our world will do nothing to negatively effect how we treat the world. People aren't going to stop trying to save tigers because we have a mammoth to look at. People aren't going to have to make a choice to clone a mammoth or save a habitat because there are already people attempting to do both! We can't hold off on scientific pursuits simply because the world isn't perfect. We landed on the moon for heavens sake, should we not have done that because there are troubles in the world? Like I said earlier, that is an issue to take up with the news reporters more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 22, 2011 3:35:59 GMT
Double post, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 22, 2011 4:00:30 GMT
^^^ You do not know if they will except a matrilineally unrelated member. Some do and some don't. Money doesn't come from a magic hat? OH NO!?! Well at least it still grows on trees! The mammoth would be born from a surrogate mother who would be an elephant who would have a herd. So I would predict it would be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 22, 2011 4:11:48 GMT
The mammoth is an iconic figure. If they did manage to clone one, I think its safe to say that it would be the best cared for animal on the face of the planet.
|
|