Should we attempt to clone a mammoth ?

[UM-Bot]

Scientists have been seeking viable DNA samples from a well-preserved mammoth found in Siberia.

The creation of a live mammoth would be one of the greatest scientific achievements in history, but even if scientists were able to discover the preserved genetic material necessary to make it happen there could be a number of other factors that prevent any cloning attempts from taking place.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...clone-a-mammoth

[Paranomaly]

We don't have to play God! Definitely not worth it in my opinion.

[SolarPlexus]

Agree bro, but I somehow think it cannot be helped

[lightly]

It would be amazing if they did... but something about it doesn't seem safe?

[highdesert50]

How would I like to be "cloned" and emerge in four hundred thousand years much as would a Neanderthal or Denisovan? I suspect as a sentient being, I would feel quite out of place and perhaps be relegated to a laboratory or worse, some kind of zoo. I suspect too, so would the mammoth.

[Bavarian Raven]

I think it should be done. But that is just me.

[SolarPlexus]

It'd open the Pandora box of genetics tho

[Leonardo]

What purpose, apart from showing that we can do something, would cloning an extinct species achieve?

There is no habitat for a mammoth population that is not already occupied by other species, so there is no ecological benefit involved. There is no pharmaceutical or livestock benefit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put any cloning expertise into saving modern species that are in danger of going extinct because of our interference, and so reap an actual ecological benefit, rather than try to resurrect an already extinct species?

[Mikenator]

scientist already got together years ago and said that if a mammoth were to be cloned today its large amount of fur and blubber would cause it to overheat in today's environment and that's why it only existed in the Ice Age because its totally built for the cold it would be like if you took a Eskimo from Alaska and put him in Florida for the rest of his life the only real way it survive if you put it in Alaska or somewhere else really cold in the planet thats naturally cold

[Troublehalf]

Actually, I think we should. Large parts of Russia, mainly Siberia, are inhospitable. This is because main food crops can't grow there, it's difficult to transport food there and animals can't survive the cold.

Mammoths, could. Not only would they be relatively undisturbed in the area, but they could be, in effect, perfect animals for people living there. Not only do they provide a huge amount of meat, but they are covered in thick fur, which could be turned into various things. Their bones will be able to be turned into various tools, not to mention their tusks.

I also chuckled at Leonardo saying "There is no pharmaceutical or livestock benefit" - Really? Huh. Guess live mammoths have been researched and studied for potential pharmaceutical benefits. They also can't live in Siberia which is not exactly full. I should also point out, over 90% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Thousands go extinct every year, they still would even if humans didn't exist. Do we help the process? Sure, but it isn't anything new to nature.

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Yes, because i want to ride it..

[Leonardo]

Actually, I think we should. Large parts of Russia, mainly Siberia, are inhospitable. This is because main food crops can't grow there, it's difficult to transport food there and animals can't survive the cold.

Those large parts of Siberia are taiga - not the tundra which was the mammoth's native habitat. The mammoth is not suited for survival in taiga and cloning them to place a population in that habitat would simply be cruel.

Mammoths, could. Not only would they be relatively undisturbed in the area, but they could be, in effect, perfect animals for people living there. Not only do they provide a huge amount of meat, but they are covered in thick fur, which could be turned into various things. Their bones will be able to be turned into various tools, not to mention their tusks.

I also chuckled at Leonardo saying "There is no pharmaceutical or livestock benefit" - Really? Huh. Guess live mammoths have been researched and studied for potential pharmaceutical benefits. They also can't live in Siberia which is not exactly full. I should also point out, over 90% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Thousands go extinct every year, they still would even if humans didn't exist. Do we help the process? Sure, but it isn't anything new to nature.

There is not enough [human] population in the taiga to warrant the resurrection of an extinct species simply for the purpose of livestock, and the mammoth is so close to modern elephants that we already know there would be no pharmaceutical benefit in recreating the species via cloning.

So, chuckle away, chucklehead.

[Bavarian Raven]

There are still areas of arctic prairie that mammoths could inhabit. Besides, cloning mammoths is a lot lest risky then cloning Dino's.

[SolarPlexus]

What purpose, apart from showing that we can do something, would cloning an extinct species achieve?

Dolly was cloned out of scientific and public interest. But sheep is boring

There is no habitat for a mammoth population that is not already occupied by other species, so there is no ecological benefit involved. There is no pharmaceutical or livestock benefit.

What about commercial benefit? Crichton?

Wouldn't it make more sense to put any cloning expertise into saving modern species that are in danger of going extinct because of our interference, and so reap an actual ecological benefit, rather than try to resurrect an already extinct species?

Ofc It would, most certainly . But we've never been known as a reasonable, truly efficient species

Edited November 16, 2014 by SolarPlexus

[Leonardo]

There are still areas of arctic prairie that mammoths could inhabit. Besides, cloning mammoths is a lot lest risky then cloning Dino's.

It is doubtful the relatively small amount of tundra grassland that still exists as remnants of the vast paleolithic tundra the mammoth used to inhabit (stretching from Britain all the way across Europe, northern Asia and into northern America (Canada) can support a viable population of mammoths.

I take your (tongue-in-cheek) point regarding it being more feasible to resurrect the mammoth rather than species far more separated from our current era, however my point that cloning should focus on current, but endangered (by us), species is - I think - of much greater value to us than looking to bring back species which may not be suited to survive in the current era.

[Skep B]

I think for the sake of finding out if its possible, we should do it. Inevitably human cloning seems like it would be useful and this could be a step in that direction.

[nothinglizx2]

Sure you can learn a lot in the cloning process. Sure "Is what i'm doing ethical" may be the question for the heart. But what you must understand is, in order for innovation there must be some risk. For the bigger to become smaller, better, more efficient. You must go through a process of failure. If ever there is cloning, if it is ever to be precise and without so many failed clones, then success may require failure.

[Atuke]

Yes it's our obligation to bring them back if there is viable DNA and a means to do it. This shouldn't even be a question

[ancient astronaut]

No matter what our opinion is, they (Scientists) are gonna do it anyway.

[Finder of Lost Things]

That's a great idea! We could bring them back to life along with an assortment of other extinct animals from that time period and build a big park to put them in. We could make it totally secure, surround it by multiple electic fences with numerous failsafes and all will be well.

[xYlvax]

What purpose, apart from showing that we can do something, would cloning an extinct species achieve?

There is no habitat for a mammoth population that is not already occupied by other species, so there is no ecological benefit involved. There is no pharmaceutical or livestock benefit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put any cloning expertise into saving modern species that are in danger of going extinct because of our interference, and so reap an actual ecological benefit, rather than try to resurrect an already extinct species?

Best comment on this thread.

[Mr.United_Nations]

This seems to come up every year or so before winter. The latest i know that they are trying to fertile an African elephant

[Troublehalf]

I take your (tongue-in-cheek) point regarding it being more feasible to resurrect the mammoth rather than species far more separated from our current era, however my point that cloning should focus on current, but endangered (by us), species is - I think - of much greater value to us than looking to bring back species which may not be suited to survive in the current era.

Why would bringing back endagered species help? There are literally thousands every year which go extinct, you can't save them all. Species which people would like to see saved, such as tigers, snow leopards and other big wild cats, are suffering from humans problems. So, let's just say we manage to somehow clone more tigers or whatever (this isn't needed, cause, you know, we have breeding populations doing just that, a clone still needs to be incubated somewhere, still need a tiger to do it, which can get pregnant normally) you won't do any good than give sanctuaries and zoos more tigers. They won't be able to go into the wild, as people will still poach them. A tigers corpse goes for $50,000 in China. Therefore, you'll have to stop poaching, destruction of habitat and various other problems. Many of which cause those above, such as population growth needing more farm space and living space, more resources in general being needed, economic problems in countries such as China and Russia. So, even if you put 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 tigers, snow lepoards, lions, cheetahs, jaguars or whatever back into the wild, they'll slowly die out, again.

A mammoth, on the other hand, can be a one off thing, what good did going to the Moon do, hmm? It didn't give any material wealth, it cost vast sums of money and was done to "Show dem Commies" (Those Commies also pretty much did all the major 1sts for Space).

So, if you have a plan to solve economic problems, the inherient "witch-doctor" culture that many people believe exists in China, then yeah, you might be able to reduce tiger poaching, but you won't stop it. Money is money.

So, yeah. Also, can you tell me how cloning can help save insects, flowers and such? Who's funding this? Do you know how much work goes into it? The reason it isn't done is because it's too expensive and hard, it's why 'normal' breeding is better at the moment. We don't have a machine where you can type "1000 of X please!" and it spits them out.

Also, you're failing to realise one of the most important things. The learning process of clonning a mammoth can help in the future conservation of endangered creatures. Our current technology on the subject is inferior to what we would actually need, but if we can manage to do it via a corpse, we can do it for other, live things. A mammoth is a "show piece" cloning subject, thus it attracts more money, media and support. This means more money invested into cloning techniques and blah blah blah.

As for your other comments, yes, I will chuckle. You seem to forget that the mammoths would be "farmed", as in, they won't just be blonked in an field and left and hunted with sticks and stones. There will be infastructure like housing and such. So, yeah, it is very possible. Also your point on there not being enough population there, is correct. The reason there isn't is because you can't support large numbers of people in that area. With mammoths, you could.

[Sundew]

Wolves were a keystone species in parts of N. America, when we killed them off we altered the ecology of their habitat. When they were returned to Yellowstone, it started a positive cascade effect, not only among predators and prey but the water and land itself. Coyote numbers dropped, deer and elk no longer over-grazed the lowland areas; they moved out of the river valley areas where they were easy prey, without the constant grazing of lowland areas, the river vegetation became stable, the river stopped meandering and the banks stabilized, silt was minimized, riverine animals and plants thrived as they once did.

We cannot know all that the mammoth did for its habitat, but it is possibly a keystone species in the way African Elephants are in their habitat: African Elephants keep water holes open in the dry times, thus saving other species from death by drought. It may be that mammoths, if they could be created and returned to their habitat in sufficient numbers might transform the tundra into what once existed before they became extinct and provide benefits to that habitat we have not even yet guessed.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Sundew

[David-C]

sure. it starts with a nice cuddly mammoth and the next thing ya know...