• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woolly Mammoth Could Be ‘De-Extinct’ In 2 Years, Scientist Says

First woolly mammoths...then dinosaurs...what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
 
DiAnna said:
The science is pretty danged cool; but what do they plan to do with the creature if they actually "grow" one? What kind of habitat could they provide?

I'm no PETA nut, but resurrecting long-extinct species to an earth where they cannot survive and thrive without massive human intervention may not be the kindest course of action for the animals involved.

Then again, I do tend to overthink things on occasion, lol.
Click to expand...

DiAnna, this post here struck a cord with me as well. I'm overcome with 'Why?'

Then there's the unintended consequences that might result from cloning such a beast. No telling what effect previously extinct DNA would have on the biosphere. It might be nothing. It might be a catastrophe.

Do we as humans really think that we have amassed the wisdom to make nearly God-like decisions, such as reviving extinct species?

I'm really not thinking that we have amassed the wisdom necessary.
 
Jetboogieman said:
See now this is exactly the issue.

The state of the world today is a whole lot different to what it was when these incredible beasts roamed the planet and one key feature is it's warmer, a lot warmer in real terms than their ancestors would have endured.

I dunno, I think the technology is promising and much like the seed vaults we have created, perhaps genetic coding for other animals to bring them back when we've finally decided to stop completely ****ing our planet like it's Paris Hilton would be a decent idea.

But I cannot imagine, that resurrecting such an animal back into the current environment would allow it to thrive, quite the opposite, the poor beast would be dead in weeks, months if its lucky.
Click to expand...

The planet warmed on a cyclical basis while the Mammoth was around, and it got on just fine. It also went extinct recently enough that the plants it fed on still exist as well.

I really don't see any reason why a resurrected Mammoth couldn't live comfortably in certain portions of modern Canada, Alaska, Siberia, or Scandinavia. If they anything, they might actually be a bit too comfortable, and become a nuisance due to having nothing to really keep their numbers in check.

The above would be a good argument for not releasing them into the wild, willie-nillie. It is not, however, an argument for not going forward with the experiment itself.
 
Last edited:
Yarff said:
Because we can. Lol
Click to expand...

Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

History is rife with instances where we could, and did, but shouldn't have.

In my view, this is also one of those instances.
 
eohrnberger said:
Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

History is rife with instances where we could, and did, but shouldn't have.

In my view, this is also one of those instances.
Click to expand...

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Trial and error is the only way humanity moves forwards.
 
Yarff said:
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Trial and error is the only way humanity moves forwards.
Click to expand...

While true, there are also things that humanity should leave alone, things which humanity hasn't assembled sufficient wisdom to delve into.

I believe this to be one of them. You obviously believe differently. So be it.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
What's the point?
Click to expand...

Actually, the question i think would be more appropriate is (in a sarcastic tone) "What could possibly go wrong?" while thinking about what Sam Neill's character in Jurassic Park said about Dinos and Man suddenly being thrown back together after being apart for 60+ million years.
 
eohrnberger said:
Do we as humans really think that we have amassed the wisdom to make nearly God-like decisions, such as reviving extinct species?

I'm really not thinking that we have amassed the wisdom necessary.
Click to expand...

Thank you Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jurassic park again)!

Well, not as close to what he'd have to say on the subject, but close enough.
 
Yarff said:
Because we can. Lol
Click to expand...

I agree! Let's mess with the flu virus and see what we can make it do. I mean, The Stand is fiction. Something like that would never happen in real life, right? Um...right?
 
Roadvirus said:
I agree! Let's mess with the flu virus and see what we can make it do. I mean, The Stand is fiction. Something like that would never happen in real life, right? Um...right?
Click to expand...

Oh hell! Don't even have to go to science fiction.

The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920) was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus.[SUP][1][/SUP] It infected 500 million people across the world,[SUP][2][/SUP] including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million (three to five percent of the world's population[SUP][3][/SUP]), making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Disease had already greatly limited life expectancy in the early 20th century. A considerable spike occurred at the time of the pandemic, specifically the year 1918. Life expectancy dropped by about 12 years.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill juvenile, elderly, or already weakened patients; in contrast, the 1918 pandemic predominantly killed previously healthy young adults.
There are several possible explanations for the high mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some research suggests that the specific variant of the virus had an unusual aggressive nature. One group of researchers recovered the original virus from the bodies of frozen victims, and found that transfection in animals caused a rapid progressive respiratory failure and death through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system). It was then postulated that the strong immune reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths among those groups.[SUP][11][/SUP]
More recent investigations, mainly based on original medical reports from the period of the pandemic,[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] found that the viral infections itself was not more aggressive than any previous influenza, but that the special circumstances (malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, poor hygiene) promoted bacterial superinfection that killed most of the victims typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]
Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify the pandemic's geographic origin.[SUP][2][/SUP] It was implicated in the outbreak of encephalitis lethargica in the 1920s.[SUP][16][/SUP]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, let's screw around with Virus RNA, and see what we can invent. :cuckoo:
 
Roadvirus said:
I agree! Let's mess with the flu virus and see what we can make it do. I mean, The Stand is fiction. Something like that would never happen in real life, right? Um...right?
Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:
Oh hell! Don't even have to go to science fiction.



Yeah, yeah, let's screw around with Virus RNA, and see what we can invent. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

We probably already have messed around with the flu virus, and probably already created some strain of it more deadly than you could readily imagine.

It's just locked away in some government bio-weapons bunker, hopefully never to be used. Lol
 
Last edited:
Yarff said:
We probably already have messed around with the flu virus, and probably already created some strain of it more deadly than you could readily imagine.

It's just locked away in some government bio-weapons bunker, hopefully never to be used. Lol
Click to expand...

And always at risk of escaping into the wild and wreaking havoc, death and destruction.

What if its a virus that only kills all humans and does so within days after a 10 or 20 day incubation period without symptoms (must allow widespread travel)?

Can you imagine a self-inflicted extinction event?
 
eohrnberger said:
And always at risk of escaping into the wild and wreaking havoc, death and destruction.

What if its a virus that only kills all humans and does so within days after a 10 or 20 day incubation period without symptoms (must allow widespread travel)?

Can you imagine a self-inflicted extinction event?
Click to expand...

Eh. Kind of late in the game for "coulda/woulda/shoulda" at this point, to be honest. Sufficient to say, we haven't offed ourselves yet. I'll take that as a promising sign.

For that matter, you don't know what potentially positive benefits such research might have had as far as understanding the nature of viral evolution, and thus more effectively treating and preventing future outbreaks, is concerned.

Science tends to be a double-edged sword, in most cases.
 
Last edited:
Yarff said:
Eh. Kind of late in the game for "coulda/woulda/shoulda" at this point, to be honest. Sufficient to say, we haven't offed ourselves yet. I'll take that as a promising sign.

For that matter, you don't know what potentially positive benefits such research might have had as far as understanding the nature of viral evolution, and thus effectively treating and preventing future outbreaks, is concerned.

Science tends to be a double-edged sword, in most cases.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but must always be mindful of the risks. Any virulent virus research and RNA manipulation needs to be conducted in a level 5 bio-hazard environment.
That cost puts it out of reach of all but the government, which, of course, has plenty of our money.
 
poweRob said:
I guess we will be seeing more of this stuff. Say hello to the early version of Jurassic Park.

Woolly Mammoth Could Be ‘De-Extinct’ In 2 Years, Scientist Says

A Harvard University scientist told The Guardian this week that his team is only two years from resurrecting some traits of the woolly mammoth, which went extinct during the last ice age. The goal is to create an embryo that’s a hybrid of the woolly mammoth and its closest living relative, the Asian elephant.

“Our aim is to produce a hybrid elephant-mammoth embryo,” researcher George Church told The Guardian. “Actually, it would be more like an elephant with a number of mammoth traits.”​
Click to expand...
I kind of think scientists should resurrect species that we know for a fact we caused. I have doubts about what the caused the extinction of animal that has been dead for at least several thousand years. Sure ancient humans ate mammoths but they also ate other animals that were smaller,easier to catch and less dangerous. Sure it would be cool to see a walking living breathing mammoth,to see if it's more or less aggressive than elephants today and to see how it behaved.
 
jamesrage said:
I kind of think scientists should resurrect species that we know for a fact we caused. I have doubts about what the caused the extinction of animal that has been dead for at least several thousand years. Sure ancient humans ate mammoths but they also ate other animals that were smaller,easier to catch and less dangerous. Sure it would be cool to see a walking living breathing mammoth,to see if it's more or less aggressive than elephants today and to see how it behaved.
Click to expand...

Well it would be a mix of mammoth and Asian elephant. So we might get a slight but skewed view, behaviorally speaking.
 
poweRob said:
Well it would be a mix of mammoth and Asian elephant. So we might get a slight but skewed view, behaviorally speaking.
Click to expand...

A very skewed view

As it would not have been taught the skills of a mammoth, nor been socialized in the herd with other mammoths. What we would see is how a single mammoth behaves with no socialization with other mammoths
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
A very skewed view

As it would not have been taught the skills of a mammoth, nor been socialized in the herd with other mammoths. What we would see is how a single mammoth behaves with no socialization with other mammoths
Click to expand...

Well if they make a whole herd of them....
 
Quag said:
Well if they make a whole herd of them....
Click to expand...

Then you have a herd of mammoths who dont know how to be mammoths, and do not have the environment they would have existed in originally
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Then you have a herd of mammoths who dont know how to be mammoths, and do not have the environment they would have existed in originally
Click to expand...

So Jurassic world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom