# Walking with Mammoths



## Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

I just read this:
Russian scientists to attempt clone of woolly mammoth


> Scientists from Russia and Japan are undertaking a Jurassic Park-style experiment in an effort to bring the woolly mammoth out of extinction...


If it was April I might have thought it a spoof but it is on the level.

Jasper Fforde's _Thursday Next_ series of books are set in an alternative reality where woolly mammoths have been cloned and live as wild herds rampaging through suburban gardens. They have also brought back dodos and Neanderthal men.

It would give us a chance to learn more about them, but if they are kept in a zoo it seems pointless. There are other big mammals close to extinction, surely we should be preventing that first.

Are there other ethical considerations? Does it make cloned humans more likely? What about Dinosaurs?

The technique seems to be straight out of _Jurassic Park_; the mammoths will only be hybrids as elephant cells will be used with the mammoth DNA, just as in _Jurassic Park_ amphibian cells were used.


----------



## Metryq (Dec 8, 2011)

*No, we won’t be able to clone a woolly mammoth in the next five years*

DNA alone is not enough. Many genes also act as "switches" to turn the characteristics of an organism on or off without changing the DNA code itself. Some of those switches react to environmental stimuli. DNA is the hardware, and we're only beginning to understand that. The "switches" are the software, and that's all unexplored territory at the moment. And if there's something after that?

I don't think one could call our current cloning technology "primitive." It's practically non-existent. But saying "five years" will bring in funding.


----------



## Starbeast (Dec 8, 2011)

A while back, Russian scientists that discovered a frozen mammoth specimen, cooked some of the ancient meat, they said it tasted good.

Even if we had the technology to clone ancient animals, should we?


----------



## Abernovo (Dec 8, 2011)

Not always the best idea. What they might be able to do is back breed. Attempts have been made to back breed (selective breeding to bring out traits of pregenitor species/breeds) the aurochs from primitive breeds of cattle. From what I hear, they didn't quite get the size of the aurochs, but they got the temper.

1.5 metres at the shoulder and aggressive. Mammoths were bigger and, presumably, at least as potentially dangerous as modern elephants can be. Might make for an interesting walk through the Siberian countryside.


----------



## THX-1138 (Dec 11, 2011)

The first post says something about it being pointless. I disagree there, they(and other extinct animals) could be reintroduced in an attempt restore Pleistocene mammalian diversity. They've only been dead for a few thousand years.


Abernovo said:


> 1.5 metres at the shoulder and aggressive. Mammoths were bigger and, presumably, at least as potentially dangerous as modern elephants can be. Might make for an interesting walk through the Siberian countryside.


I resent that. You shouldn't deny an animal's right to live simply because it's allegedly dangerous.


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2011)

THX-1138 said:


> The first post says something about it being pointless.


 What I actually said (very clearly) was that keeping them in a Zoo would be pointless. We would learn nothing about their natural behaviour or habitat if they were incarcerated; they would simply be on exhibition. Maybe you would like to see them re-introduced into the wild, but realistically, and no matter how much you resent what Abernovo said, that will not happen any more than we would see bears and wolves re-introduced into the UK. And my main point was shouldn't our first priority be stopping the extinction of tigers and rhino, because that is something we could really achieve if we wanted to.

But anyway, as Metryq has shown, that BBC report is overstating what is presently possible. These would be only ever hybrids with elephants if they even survived, so the argument is pretty much moot.


----------



## Dozmonic (Dec 11, 2011)

All creatures are hybridised refinements of their ancestors. The potential for creating a new species is as fascinating as the idea of bringing back what mammoths were like 4.5k years ago, even if it's not exact.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 11, 2011)

I disagree with both points.
Bringing them back for zoos may or may not be as effective as CGIing them into documentaries about them. Even if we reintroduced them into a wild it would not teach us anything about what they did when they previously inhabited a similar environment so much as it would teach us what they do with it now. It would be like hand raising a monkey and then turning it loose in the jungle and saying that what it did there is what any other monkey would do. No, its not what any other monkey would do, mammals learn how to be from their parents, so unless one of those unthawed mammoths wants to walk out and mother the new hybrid mammoth we wouldnt learn what we were hoping to.
I'm also against "saving" species that are going extinct presently that we already know everything about, because too often "saving" means captive breading programs to make sure that there are enough of them in zoos so that when humanity finds a nice reservation that we dont mind giving up to "mear animals" they can be "successfully reintroduced". 

Unless we are going to take the trouble to learn to live alongside the other inhabitants of this planet, and learn from them how to successfully manage resources, there is no point in "saving" them from extinction. better they die off and not see the wreck we make of things and maybe just maybe their disappearance will open enough eyes to our mismanagement.


----------



## Metryq (Dec 11, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> Unless we are going to take the trouble to learn to live alongside the other inhabitants of this planet



Excellent point. Seriously, why clone an extinct species back into existence? For the novelty of it? Every Christmas season lots of people "gift" pets that end up on the street or in animal shelters once the novelty wears off. There should be more than entertainment value in a living creature.

Hopewrites' statement about learning to live with other animals suggests the _only_ viable reason I can see for reviving an extinct species: "re-terraforming" our own world. But even that could be a very complicated undertaking. Politically, there are people who favor big government and regulating everything. The illusion is control. "Free market" forces—and nature—have their own way of seeking balance. The trick with politics or an ecosystem is to find the sweet spot that allows us to live in an acceptable level of safety and prosperity, while still allowing as much of the "automatic" forces to balance themselves—because we're not clever enough yet to run the whole show.

Still, the idea of Utopia implies stagnation; once you attain perfection, the only way to go is into some measure of chaos. And no matter how much control we gain over the world around us, there will always be more of the universe beyond our reach. The universe is a dynamic place. Even the stars die.

Are we going to revive every specimen of life that has ever existed on Earth? I don't think there's enough space for them all—that's why nature spread us out through time.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 11, 2011)

Control is a favorite illusion of humans.
I dont think any other creature is as obsessed with it as we seem to be. I think it's a horrible perversion of some deep-seated territorial desire. every crime committed has it's roots in control.
Unless we learn to live without "needing to control" anything but our own actions I see no positive future for humanity.


----------



## Nik (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, if it works, you will get mammoths who think they're elephants. They'll be in safari parks or large zoo enclosures, treated as proudly as pandas. No problems there...

FWIW, the extinct straight-tusked elephant would be a sight, too, but they neglected to be flash-frozen, so there's no chance of seeing them roam again...


----------



## THX-1138 (Dec 12, 2011)

Regardless of whether we put them in zoos or reintroduce them, they would have _some_ scientific significance. Obviously you could learn more from a living creature than a fossil or frozen specimen. You could learn about their physiology, their metabolism, dietary needs, etc. And many behaviors are constant, instinctive. So yes, even a captive mammoth would show some semblance in behavior to the extinct ones.


----------



## TL Rese (Dec 20, 2011)

THX-1138 said:


> Regardless of whether we put them in zoos or reintroduce them, they would have _some_ scientific significance. Obviously you could learn more from a living creature than a fossil or frozen specimen.


 
yea, i agree - it would add to scientific knowledge.  a lot of science is about trial and error, after all.

but cloning them would only be half the battle, if you're talking about resurrecting an extinct species.  how do they plan on getting enough genetic variation for the species to be self-sustaining, from only one mammoth?  is there enough viable frozen mammoth DNA for them to resurrect the entire species?  also, even if we managed to reintroduce them, they lived during the ice age, in a climate and environment very different from our own.  how would they survive in our modern global-warming world?  

sadly, if we do clone mammoths, they'll most likely have to be captive animals for a long time.  if they're eventually reintroduced to the wild, they'll prob be different from the original ice age mammoths, since they'll have to adapt to a much warmer world.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 20, 2011)

TL Rese said:


> if they're eventually reintroduced to the wild, they'll prob be different from the original ice age mammoths, since they'll have to adapt to a much warmer world.


exactly why we shouldnt.
just because we have the technical capability to do something doesnt mean we should. we have enough nuclear power to blow up the moon. think of all the advantages!! 

:|

just because you can, doesnt mean you should.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Dec 20, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> just because you can, doesnt mean you should.





Ah, if only more people, especially those with authority, would think upon these words more often.


I could chop down a power pole with an axe, but should I? No.


----------



## TL Rese (Dec 22, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> exactly why we shouldnt.
> just because we have the technical capability to do something doesnt mean we should.


 
well, of course you have to act within reason, and every case isn't the same.  in the case of mammoths, i think cloning one would be a landmark achievement in science - like going to the moon, but in the realm of genetics.  genetically resurrecting an extinct animal is a breakthrough and it could lead to advances that we might not see right now - the way going to the moon was a landmark in future space advancement.  

it might not make sense to reintroduce mammoths to the wild, as i've stated.  but at the same time, just because it's a captive animal doesn't mean it won't be happy.  think about our pets - all captives, technically.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 22, 2011)

I dont think pets are even technically captives. they are bread for it.


----------



## Dave (Dec 22, 2011)

Okay, Okay! I take back my comment that to do this is utterly pointless. As well pointed out now, I accept that there would obviously be some scientific progress made:

It might be only a single Mammoth/Elephant hybrid, but it would be a first step to cloning a real Mammoth, and long journeys begin with small steps.
The potential for creating a new species is equally as fascinating as the idea of bringing back Mammoths.
It might allow us to isolate some rare gene - a 'hairy tusk' genome for instance - or something more useful such the ability to digest complex carbohydrates which might then have a usefulness beyond mere scientific curiosity and into biotechnological engineering. 
Even confined to a Zoo, without the learned behaviour of its parents and peers, it might still show some innate behaviour.
Even if it died through lack of the correct climate/habitat/food sources, we would at least learn something more about what those limiting factors actually were.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that the ethical argument being made against doing this is very well demonstrated. I think you need to explain that a little more. In comparing genetic engineering to nuclear weapons, are you afraid of letting some 'genie out of the bottle'?


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 22, 2011)

In comparing playing with genetics at this point in the evolution of our planetary management skills with Kennedy's idea that blowing up the moon would show our military superiority I hoped to state with humor my feeling that it was a learning curve that was fraught with unseen danger. A child who has learned to strike a match is not ready to play with fireworks.
There is too much we dont know how to predict or how to learn, even leaving aside the ethics that life is not the plaything of science.


----------



## Metryq (Dec 22, 2011)

hopewrites said:


> Kennedy's idea that blowing up the moon would show our military superiority



When, exactly, did he make this proposal? I don't have the raw numbers available for a calculation, but I doubt Mankind has amassed enough nuclear power to "blow up" the Moon. I don't doubt that we could kill _almost_ every living thing on the face of the Earth. We might even be able to sterilize the surface completely, but I doubt that. Life is pretty tenacious. 

The Moon is 7.3477 × 10^22 kg of very stubborn rock. For military purposes, the useful power of a nuclear weapon plateaus very quickly because the blast is a point source—it's like hitting a fly with a hammer. Beyond the tiny pressure needed to "swat" the fly, anything more is waste. Even with nuclear charges buried deep under the lunar surface, I doubt we could split the Moon, let alone destroy the whole body. The only space nukes around JFK's time were the "Rainbow bomb" experiments.

But back to the mammoths. I'm sure something would be learned in (repeatedly) attempting to clone a mammoth, and the project would have the "fly to the Moon" extravagance that made the Apollo missions popular. However, researchers would probably make greater progress working with smaller animals that have shorter gestation times. Science often benefits from un-regimented serendipity, but engineering does not. And that's why I think attempting mammoths right now is premature.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 22, 2011)

Metryq said:


> And that's why I think attempting mammoths right now is premature.


I couldnt google it up quickly, but I'm glad we agree about the mammoths.


----------

