Should We Clone Extinct Animals?

Exactly. Ecosystems don't stand still. They shift and adapt. Adapting backwards? Is just another change in a series of events, and, thanks to the nature of complexity theory, unlikely to work as planned.

The universe deals with all the rules... especially the ones we don't know about.

If they adapt, why are you so against having them adapt again (which is the point of cloning species exterminated by humans)?

Not to mention the ecosystems still haven't adapted yet (otherwise there would be substitute species filling the same niches)

I have said this before but this is not how evolutionary niches work.

There is no pre-destined "Pattern A species for Niche Slot B" which once again has to be filled by a Pattern A species.

edited 25th May '15 12:31:31 PM by 3of4

But...you completely ignored my question. It does not matter that those animals went extinct because of human intervention or not. It is the consequences for other species, animal and vegetable, if we do bring them back.

I even came up with a funny comparison with a Vegas all you can eat buffet.

And you ignored it.

I am hurt.

Those other species coexisted just fine. They didn't evolve after those species went extinct: they coexisted. Bringing them back would not cause those to go extinct, and if they do decline, that should be normal, since they increased due to the extinctions in the first place.

You guys seem to be thinking that because they went extinct they automatically cannot survive in our world without causing damage, when this is the exact same world that they lived in. And that answers that Vegas analogy: that simply wouldn't happen.

edited 25th May '15 12:34:04 PM by Bk-notburgerking

They went extinct because they couldn't survive in our world.

A world which we are part of and that we cannot completely control. Without migratory patterns that can be alternated the same way they used to who is to say that, say, Mammoths could get their breeding seasons and food routes ready without having to sacrifice, for example, natural reserves, other endangered animals, or human settlements?

Who is to say they are not going to inflict losses on the Saiga Antelope? Will the consumption of grass by these mammoths lower the population of frogs, other insects and even fishlife that the Siberian Crane predates on? Would Polar bears be ok with Mammoths showing up on their turf without clashes existing, and marine and other life finding itself at risk? (let's say Polar Bear loses to mammoth. Is displaced. Dies. Elk and moose populationsthrive. Less grass for mammoth. Mammoth has not enough food. Dies.)

Who are you to affirm that such problems would not happen? Cuz' that sure sounds like a lot more complicated assurance that is given by a couple of links that state Humans had a hand in the demise of animals in the past

Don't underestimate GluttonCon, man. You'd starve in Vegas. And by the way, it's a desert.

edited 25th May '15 12:42:27 PM by Aszur

If they couldn't survive in our world, they wouldn't have evolved in the first place, because our world happens to be theirs as well. We are contemporaries.

And that means those scenarios that you described are nonsense. If mammoth are trouble for other species, those other species wouldn't have evolved. If those species are trouble for mammoth, they wouldn't have evolved.

You have to stop thinking of them as separate ecosystems and realize it's the same ecosystem that has been changed by humans.

edited 25th May '15 1:07:32 PM by Bk-notburgerking

If it is "The same ecosystem" that has been changed by humans, then we would have replaced the Mammoth.

And I do not know about you but I dont feel like eating steppes grass.

If you feel like chewing some grass though, by all means. Go ahead.

edited 25th May '15 1:10:06 PM by Aszur

Well that part just proves my point. We aren't grazers, and the system needs a giant grazer. That niche is at the moment not filled by anything in that area. And you just proved we can't do it.

The system doesn't *need* anything. The system *has* stuff and if it doesn't have it it moves on.

Deers, yaks, rabbits, goose, lemmings, dall sheep, caribou, and reindeer eat grass.

I think they are doing my grass eating part just fine.

But none of them are big enough to be ecosystem engineers in the way proboscideans are.

It does. Mammoths would have survived if not for us, and unless something evolves to replace them (which is not going to happen) that ecosystem has nothing to clear trees, move soil around, etc.

edited 25th May '15 3:13:42 PM by Bk-notburgerking

Ok. So. Hold on. According to you, the animals would survive because the current modern environment there is now would sustain them since it is exactly the same as it used to be.

But ALSO according to you, they are needed enough that without them, the environment would be diferent?

What?

No, what I mean is that the environment is dependent on the animal more than the animal depends on the environment (although both do depend on each other). In this current state the environment has not changed enough that reintroduction would be impossible, but enough to warrant the reintroduction.

Somewhere, a mass of ecologists and genetic engineers have spontaneously been hit with a sense of sadness and lose.

Oi, the environment is not dependent on the animal/s.

Obviously you haven't heard of the concept of keystone species.

Semantics, when I think of environment - I think of the non-living forces which couldn't care less about what happens to the packets of life struggling to eek out a temporary existence. It would still exist, albeit in a different form. There's not a spot on Earth which has stayed constant. It's animals (and plants) who adapt (or die), not their surroundings.

As for the concept of keystone species, I think you're oversimplifying things, which is not surprising because that concept has the tendency to oversimplify stuff.

For example, I think you previously complained about pandas not being a keystone species. But it is, pandas are so goddamn popular that trying to keep them alive preserves swaths of forests in China which scores poorly on animal rights.

Yes, and no. The environment is dependent on animals. Plural. Not singular. The job that a single grazing animal does is replicated by other. The grass the mammoth does not eat is eaten by elks.

Like the example of the sloth that used to eat some cacti and spread it around. Yeah, other cacti have taken over. We lost the sloth, and we may lose the cacts. But the environment? She's doin' fine and she's taking belly dancing lessons.

I think your sources to confirm this are saying no such thing, and I also imagine that you mut be picturing that this◊ is actually this◊

I don't want to be a smartass but. It's not.

Something to keep in mind about how the steppes developed and were sustained: step one — miles of nearby ice to desiccate the local climate. :/

Change to the way their ecosystems worked was going to happen, Mammoths or not, thanks to the lack of glaciers. From our perspective, the change is slow. But, from a geological perspective, it's a lot quicker. <shrugs>

Do more research. The pre-glacial biome was rather different: heck, interglacial periods saw different plant species come and go. Mainly because different grasses like different conditions at different times. And, the glaciers were rather instrumental in creating what we think of as "the steppes" rather than "prairie", "savanna", "low veld", "tundra" "pasture" or any other kind of open plains you care to describe.

edited 26th May '15 8:48:29 AM by Euodiachloris

Considering it existed before the start of the last ice age, climate does not seem to have been a major factor. If the habitat issue actually is that bad, mammoths would not have evolved in the first place.

It doesn't have to look catastrophic to be catastrophic. That's why many people think there isn't a problem, when there is.

edited 26th May '15 9:58:52 AM by Bk-notburgerking

Am not sure about what type of biome mammoths prefer, but if they're similar to African elephants which apparently prefers savannahs to forests, I'm going to have another issue.

Ya know, getting rid of trees is easy. Heck, we humans are way better at clearing forests than elephants. It's waiting for trees to grow that's tough.

If they need wide open spaces, we better not be sacrificing a forested area for them to mow down. As far as I know, it's the areas with trees which have more bio-diversity. Not that I'm against grasslands, savannahs, tundras, etc., but I just do not want to sacrifice what little forests we have left.

That is the point. the forest isn't supposed to be there. It's causing habitat damage. It's not a natural environment since we are the ones that allowed it to exist. Deforestation is a problem, but trees where there should be no trees is just as bad.

Biodiversity is bad if it exists in a place that isn't supposed to have a lot of diversity.

Returning a forested area to a non-forested state is not environmental havoc if the forest doesn't belong there.

edited 26th May '15 10:00:45 AM by Bk-notburgerking

Well, see, that is the thing of it. Nature does not care about the mammoths, nature never cared about the mammoths, and nature most certainly does not need the mammoths. There is no predetermined "natural state" in which, if it is different, it is unnatural. Forests are about as natural as can be. The simple fact is, the mammoths are gone. The environment has changed, different species have thrived, and the new environment is just as good and valid as the old one.

No. No no no no. Replacing an open plain with a forest isn't causing habitat damage, it's replacing one habitat with another. It is a natural habitat, just not the one you think should be there. Given how many forested areas that have been turned into open plains, I am utterly baffled why you're upset when the opposite action occurs.

Are you going to start advocating for the return of massive inland seas, because "that's how it used to be"??^note You know, back in the Cretaceous when half of California was underwater.