I honestly feel like the animals who are in the critical endangered category should be our first concern. Sumatran and Javan Rhinos, Amur leopards and tigers and etc would be on that "Cool and Interesting Animal"lists to consider bring back if they were already gone. Which is the way they're headed already. And those creatures are part of the nature habitat already and wouldn't really cause negative effects with if handled correctly if you reintroduced them back into the wild. But with something like a mammoth it could cause a lot of problems like she said. At this point, we should probably concentrate on the species we're currently forcing into extinction, and keeping them going.
I really think the thylacine should be brought back, not only cause it was a cool animal but also since it's downfall was all our fault like many species, but also it's niche in the environment is relatively still there. The introduction of invasive species in it's native homeland (Australia, Tasmania) was a big impact already then the unnecessary poaching of it under the idea it was killing live stock when it was probably the foxes and dingos that were already in sizable numbers while the thylacine was declining. Australia is already trying to remove these invasive species cause many marsupial species are becoming a concern for extinction since their declining numbers. If these invasive species are cleared and original species populations restored the habitat for the thylacine will be there since it was a major predator before dingos and foxes were introduced.
I don't think bringing back a woolly mammoth would be a great idea, but think if done correctly something like the thylacene could be used to help ecological problems in either Their native habitats, or areas near their native habitats (i.e. the rabbit problem in Australia). with the carrier pigeons, they could be introduced into areas to help encourage the growth of endangered raptor populations (living in Missouri, my favorite, the peregrine falcon, comes to mind). if managed properly, they could be kept at manageable levels, but then again we humans tend to not be very good at these sorts of things. I'm not saying I even think it's a great idea, just throwing out some thoughts I had.
I think we should try to bring a few extinct animals back. One to prove the science works, and two to draw public interest/money into other projects. A living mammoth would be pretty cool, people would want to see that. I would only bring them back in small amounts, keep a little captive population to study, not put them back out in the wild unless very little time has passed.
Emily, I love your channel. I never expected to like a show about dead things so much. You have a great presence on camera. You care about the topic and you make the audience care too.
Hello! I just wanted to share my thoughts, too. This is a topic that's been close to my heart since I was a little girl; I think preserving species we are endangering is a very important goal, starting with cracking down on poaching, mining and deforestation problems that are causing these species to go extinct. I will be starting to breed uncommon species of gecko in captivity next year; there are a lot of people who are attempting to keep small captive bred populations of endangered species thriving in the meantime. Hopefully if we can find solutions to those enormous problems of loss of land and habitat change, there can be reintroduction programs. In the meantime I think bringing back species from extinction is indeed a worthwhile cause, as long as they can be maintained outside of their natural (but threatened) habitats until there is room for them to come back. :)
c) the most likely direct competition would be the Mourning Dove as they exist in similar habitats. d) The biggest issue with the de-extiction of Passenger Pigeons would be to get large enough numbers of them, due the fact that current hypotheses are that the reason for extinction was they require certain densities to breed.
Given how much we still have to learn about the genetics of species that are still around there are two ways that can take you: either the question "why bother with extinct stuff when we can still learn from living stuff?" or the question "why limit ourselves to living stuff when we could potentially learn even more from extinct stuff?"
I suppose that if we DO bring things back, they need to be something that will be, or at least have the greatest potential to be, beneficial to us or the environment they're released into. Of course, that's a lot more complicated to figure out than I make it sound, but.....yeah-why bring back a species if it's not going to have a place in the world now? That's just Frankenstein-ian.
In Yellowstone wolves were essentially extinct. They werent there, and so we can use this as a frame of reference. The wolves reintroduction had some profound and i assume unexpected results on the dynamics of the ecosystem. Beavers and bears i recall specifically. Because the wolves hunted the herbivores along the banks of streams and waterways saplings and small trees were left to grow in peace, the beavers came back. Bears began hibernating less because they could scavenge and steal wolfkills
Beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland (I know de-extinction and reintroduction are slightly different but their effects might be similar in some cases) and while they haven't been around very long, the dams they build has been thought to reduce flooding risk in the areas they have been introduced to. So de-extinction of certain species may have certain ecological positives or ecosystems services, but they need to be thought about carefully.
I also think that a de-extinction segment of a zoo would be extremely interesting, where, instead of putting them into the wild, they're held (as humanely as possible, of course) in captivity to be studied and enjoyed by the public. And maybe inspire children as well.
Consider the impact that reintroducing otters to the California coast has had. Kelp came back and there was a huge increase in fish population. Bringing back mammoths may have a similar impact on the arctic environment.
Could this be done for insects? Like the bee is very important for our ecosystem and they are declining in numbers rapidly. So for future problems this could be an solution?
One of the problems that really stood out to me is the inevitability that the newly restored species population wouldn't have enough genetic variance (it is my understanding that there wouldn't be a lot of different DNA samples from which we can resurrect the extinct) in which case, they might not be able to endure/ adapt to the ever changing environment. Then there's the probablity of re-extinctoon due to inbreeding depression or drift.
What I love about this show is that it feels like you're having a conversation with Emily and she is teaching in this fun personal way rather than feeling like you have to try and listen to a forced lecture. I agree with trying to bring back the flora and different species we have destroyed, I just fear the irresponsable use of this technology destroying ecosystems meaning whether changed environments will react well to these slightly changed original clones or just escalate the problem further.
While I think the idea of de-extinction is a fascinating and hopeful one, I am not entirely convinced that this is the time. It's hard to imagine potentially diverting funds from conservation that's desperately needed for *currently living* species to the extraordinarily expensive and labor intensive process of bringing back extinct species -- though I for one would give much to see a living thylacine. Emily's point about whether we might choose to bring back species that left a gaping ecological niche seems to offer a potential good reason, as do comments that suggest 'resurrected' individuals as a way to bring press or interest to the cause of conservation. I sincerely hope that humanity will forestall the Holocene Extinction, but if we don't, I hold out hope that we'll eventually reach a more enlightened culture where it WILL be the right time for de-extinction -- when, and only when, we can restore these species' habitats and necessary symbiotic partners (like gut bacteria in the case of animals or pollinators in the case of plants), and ensure their long-term survival and positive influence on the overall ecosystem including other extant species. Until then, I think we should carefully and faithfully begin the process of preserving DNA samples from all endangered species and from recently extinct species in hopes that the right time may someday arrive.
I enjoyed listening to your comments on bring back extinct species. The Passenger Pigeon would be a problem, since they eat crops/seeds. Even small free-ranging flocks would upset farmers. I agreed with most of your thoughts on this subject.
As an Australian, I would love to see the Thylacine come back but according to an inside source I have at the Australian Museum, who were the ones conducting the attempt at cloning of the thylacine from their preserved specimen, the samples they have are way to degraded for any real possibility of it coming back. Which gave me a sad face.
I think this is going to happen regardless of any arguments and that it may be a good thing, if the right species is brought back then it could have the same effect as putting wolves back into yellow-stone ... it has the potential for awesomeness
I absolutely love all these videos, you fellas do an excellent job. In that vein, I was wondering if a Brainscoop coffee mug was on the menu for future merchandise, as I'd surely buy one if it became available! Thank you for all you do and good luck!
I'm writing an assignment about Dawkin's book the selfish gene currently and its amazing how he summarizes everything so its easy to understand. Also he gave a us the word meme where would internet culture be without that.
Bring back the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger). It would actually be beneficial to do so because they eat mostly kangaroos, and Australia has an overpopulation of those. Also, we tamed foxes. We could probably tame the thylacine too. Perfect pet for a roo hunter, don't you think?
This was awesome! The second time I took the SAT there was super cool passage about the human ecology of cities. The author argued an interesting point, saying that to think of humans as a pollutant or a hinderance inhibiting other ecosystems was erroneous. Obviously there are some issues of ecological mistreatment by humans, but as a strong group with a unique ecosystem, why would humans be morally obligated to bring back a species? Proponents of a Macro Evolutionary model would be perfectly right in their domination, and free of obligation. I used to really want to bring back the dodo and the Moa-nalo, but like Emily said, how does that impact the surviving species and at what cost?
OH MY GOD FIELD MUSEUM!!!! I live in chicago, so I'm totally excited to see what you guys think of the awesome exhibits there. It's like a second home to me and my family.
Last year, my son gave a report to his Cub Scout den about the black rhino. This year, it has been declared extinct even though there are a few individuals remaining in the wild, and several dozens in zoos. So, my vote is for the black rhino. Prince William has established a large reserve for the animals, but he can't keep the poachers away.
I think there's one thing a lot of people haven't considered about de-extinction efforts, which is behavior. How are these animals going to behave? Because based on the previous episode, they're going to act like the animals they were born to, not like their actual species would have acted, which could radically change their ecological niche, especially with K-type species. So we can either gamble and see what happens, or never find out at all.
On the Passenger Pigeon in New York. The Rock Dove (The species we all know as the Pigeon) is very different than the Passenger Pigeon a) The Passenger Pigeon was highly migratory, the Rock Dove is non-migratory. b) Rock Dove are invasive mainly in cities due to there habit of using rock faces (in cities these are replaced by buildings) for nesting grounds; Passenger Pigeons require large field areas, that don't exist in cities.
I had always been under the impression that reviving animals like the wooly mammoth was more to study them and enjoy the novelty of an extinct animal rather then return the population to a world that in all likelihood can't sustain it.
It could also completely tip the balance. A herbivore introduced into an arid environment, for example, might cause enough strain on the plant life, causing one or several other species in that area to become threatened, which could have a chain reaction up the food chain. Some of them could even be dangerous to humans. It's a pretty wild unknown!
Personally, I think that we should be focused on balancing ecosystems right now, and that requires knowing what niche each organism falls into. If we can't find a contemporaneous, endemic species, we really have two options: bring in a contemporaneous species from another, similar area that fills the niche (running the risk of becoming an invasive species), or try to "de-extinct" a recently extinct, but still local organism to fill that niche. I don't know which one is better.
I think we should create a databank of DNA. Get a few reference sequences for endangered species. That way, when the technology is there, we won't have to worry about finding viable samples to revive extinct species. (I would be surprised if this isn't being done already.)
I don't think we have a moral obligation to bring any of them back, but I do think it's something we generally should do if we can. More species means more variety which generally means a more stable system. There will probably be a few specific counter-cases, of course. Plus, then we can find out what they taste like.
There is actually very conclusive evidence that shows that the wooly mammoth was a tropical animal. The Berezovka Mammoth, found next to the Berezovka River in northern Siberia, for example. Pretty interesting stuff!
I'd love if you could talk a bit about the Quagga project in your next video in this series... Also, thanks for mentioning Thylacines, they're my favourite animal!
I like Emily's line of reasoning about the Mammoth. If their habitat is gone, then why spend so much money and time and energy to bring them back. Especially when the elephants we STILL HAVE are in huge trouble. Wouldn't that money have a bigger impact on conserving our currently endangered species. I think de-extinction fuels scientific positivism about future technology. Like "Why should we worry about Orangutans going extinct if we can just bring them back 100 years from now." Crazy
it's not a sound bite, it's what he wrote. I have seen Hitchens, and just because someone's worse it doesn't negate the sexism of the less offensive one. I'm quite happy judging a stranger on the opinion they put out in a public forum in their own words.
bringing back the wooley mammoth would be cool, but mostly as a jurrasic park kinda thing. or perhaps to study their behaviour, but to release them into the wild? they'd just go extinct again. maybe release them after we are done studying them and give em a chance but probably not spend conservation time and energy on it.
The fact is as humans we cannot draw a definitive moral conclusion regardless of the topic. The only way to solve this dilemma is to put aside the moral implications and to determine whether or not it is feasible and of course beneficial to do so. The only situations where I can see de-extinction being useful is if the extinct organism played a very important role in the ecosystem where it once lived. The fact that this already happens is enough for me to support this branch of science.
I think currently what is put across is that we're bringing back species that are "famous" rather than the other factors mentioned. In that sense it wouldn't work? I mean I'd rather fix the environment and then try to introduce these animals or more practically, introduce these animals according to the environment.
I think that it should be considered a last resort effort of conservation rather than a separate entity; the priority should be on studying and protecting ecosystems and species which currently exist, and that de-extinction should be a practice that may be undertaken only when the species in question plays a heavily significant role in its ecosystem. There also needs to be more detailed study into making sure that a species has not just gone extinct because it is less suited than competitors.
This reminds me of part of a song. 'It's so haaaaaaaaaard to say goodbye to yesterdaaaaaaaaayheee' save the animals of today and see this as an opportunity for life to try again, as it has since the dawn of...life.
@Klinety66 That's not entirely true. Though a lot of animals could not be brought back, because they're environment is no longer here, animals like the passenger pigeon where only extinct a few decades ago, so their Eco system is still very much here. Like Emily said tho, animals like the wooly mammoth lived thousands of years ago, when the arctic was completely different, so before we possibly make them de-extinct, we need to balance the Eco system that is still here.
I think that what's gone is gone. We need to focus our efforts to take care of what is still here to prevent extinctions caused by humanity in the future. Just because we can do something like De-Extinction doesn't mean we should.
This video is so timely with the news of liquid mammoth blood being found in Siberia. I think de-extincting the woolly mammoth is much more like traveling to the moon. It's not necessarily about the particular goal, but the technology and research you develop trying to get there.
I do agree with you to some extent, but having not specified the time frame, we could be reintroducing species which we only recently lost. If you think about it, restoration programmes which are currently happening are doing this to some extent. Revegetating areas which used to lay bare with their 'original' species is not such a bad idea. And from what CasMullac says, pioneer species can create favorable conditions for other species to thrive in a way that may boost ecosystems!
The positive, that I see, from bringing back an extinct animal (and I don't see this positive working with a plant) is that it then gives a public rallying point for conservation. People will hear about this species being brought back and how we have now protect its environment and start a public discussion on the topic of conservation (and possibly conservation vs preservation). I think we should not belittle the impact that public awareness and education can have on scientific issues.
De-extinction is something we should definitely be investing in. We can never know the resulting technologies that come from real world application of scientific ideas.People said NASA was a waste of money, but look at the unforeseen benefits of taking that risk; the future of mankind was changed by it. Gene repair and embryonic therapy are just a few fields that might explode from investing in this. Not to mention the "WOW' factor that helps keep investors (the public or private) interested.
I would say that we should try bringing back animals that are recently extinct or that will be extinct. Other than that, unless we figure out a place for them, we shouldn't use de-extinction
I agree with you for the most part. Everythin ends, and that's ok. However I think that there are still valid reasons to pursue de-extinction within a limmited scope. Observing animals that developed to live in a world that we can no longer observe could tell us a lot about what that world was like (even if the animals are a bit different from the origonals).
I think the fascination with de-extinction stems, at least in part, from a desire just to see if it can be done. But other than the "awesome" factor, I don't see much reason to bring back a species unless it will have a demonstrable positive impact.
I'm not opposed to trying to bring back dodos or thylacines maybe, but definitely not woolly mammoths, for the reasons you mentioned. I was just thinking about that the other day when Vondell was talking about it on tumblr.
The way I see it, the technology that would eventually enable us to clone a mammoth would open the door to various gene therapies for the disabled or unborn. ...But preserving extant species > bringing back extinct ones. I agree with that much.
The coolest instance I've heard of regarding de-extinction is bringing back a particular species of frog that partially raised its young IN ITS ACTUAL STOMACH. I don't know how I feel about de-extinct species being returned to habitats that are already learning to cope without them, but de-extinct species for research, to understand more about the world and perhaps compounds useful for humans? Sure!
I agree with your statement about the danger of bringing back a species in an Eco system that has already adapted to the extinction of the would be "de-extinct " species. If there is such a sudden printing toward moral responsibility than why not be morally responsible for the species we are already harming through our negligence.
I don't know if we are ready to be making any decisions until we can create a space for this artificial biodiversity and insure its protection. What would be more useful in the long term would be to archive genetics from all available sources, not just already extinct species, but also species that fill unique niches and important functions in all sorts of biomes. This way, when we do run in to a lack of biodiversity down the road, we will be prepared to fill in any essential niches.
the problem is: the moment the species has gone extinct (or quasi-extinct) that ecosystem has already changed small or big, it would still be a change if there were 100 blue elephants that were barely part of the food chain anymore and there are suddenly 1000 all the animals and plants that had grown used to the blue elephant not being there anymore would be affected by their sudden reappearance. that's the problem, there's no way to de-extinct species without causing at least a small change.
I agree with emily. It's one thing to repair ecosystems that are dying because of us, but it's another thing to bring back an invasive species because we think it would be cool. I'd love to have a puppy-sized mammoth as much as the next person, but I'd love to keep the arctic fox habitat going even more :)
This is a difficult situation to gauge. Some who invest in this research know that they might receive a return in tourism $ if the projects are successful. Others feel it's a moral obligation. And many just want to do it because they can. Cloning, while not streamlined, is slowly being fine-tuned with species that have difficulty breeding (certain camels) or already have genetically similar and viable embryos. Regardless of our opinions, this is happening at a steady speed and isn't stopping.
I think it would be interesting to bring back species that are functionally extinct or recently extinct (like the river dolphin) as their habitat hasn't changed as much to their absence. They might also be easier to bring back since their are more related species/ less degraded DNA samples.
One possible pro concerns predators. If a species is dying out partly because of their predators, then adding to the food supply will increase their chances of survival. Or if the predators are endangered, we can give them more food. Idk if that outweighs the cons though, or if it could just be done by sheltered breeding of animals we already have.
It's just the math of knowing that de-extinction is more than likely going to lead to other extiction, requireing more de-extinction, and follow the vicious cycle from there.
AWNYWAYS point is i think reintroducing lost species into ecosystems we feel are okay, can end up being surprisingly beneficial over all. Ive heard it even suggested rather than bringing back extinct species we simply introduce a suitable replacement from elsewhere. Cheetah for instance could replace the extinct American cheetah, Miracinonyx. or African elephants to replace mammoths or even just to study the impact in a North American ecosystem that would be similar to that of the mammoths.
I've always been saddest to see delicate bird species disappear when invasives take the niche but it seems like even if they were brought back, that niche has been filled. Our interference seems to usually cause more problems. It would be great if we could learn how to protect what we have rather than trying to reverse damage already done.
best episode of brainscoop so far! i don't understand a lot of biology, i'm an architect student, but, if we consider the humanity as a force of nature that somehow creates a evolucional pressure, wouldn't be wrong to bring back especies that are already extinct? life always seem to discover new ways to survive, shouldn't we be more preoccupied in the surviving of the humam species in this world we are creating? because nature will find a way to go on...
I think we should bring back everything that can possibly be brought back because more experience that leads to scientific advancement is never bad. Nothing has to be reintroduced now but if we have to reintroduce something in the future we will be better prepared if we try to bring back everything that we feasibly can.
I think we should try and bring back the animals that have left the biggest ecological holes. I listened to a really interesting talk/lecture by researchers monitoring the re-introduction of wolves to a western US state, and they said that they were shocked at how much the wolves helped the entire ecosystem recover much more rapidly than we could have expected. Big predators are extremely important to ecology, so we should feel morally obliged to de-extinct them if we want to fix our planet.
Something that has always bothered me about this debate is that we seem to forget that we are part of an ecosystem, not external to it. We aren't the first species to have a profound impact on the planet, and we probably won't be the last. I am all for reducing our footprint, but we have to recognize that part of natural selection, and even planetary and solar-system evolution, is that things are ever changing.
I understand the need and the want to bring back species that are gone but I really wish people would focus more on saving what we still have rather then trying to bring back what we've lost. - Great show!
I think we should only try to prevent extinction in the cases like poaching. With poaching, there really isn't a reason for the animal to go extinct, they simply are because they are valuable to us. If an animal is simply on it's way to extinction naturally, let it happen.
I see your point, but hopefully with education and a bit of luck people will realize the value of existing species. Maybe by bringing one species back we will see just how difficult and expensive it is.
Conservation of habitats of currently endangered species seems like a better use of resources, even though re-introducing an extinct species would be hugely exciting :D The BBC "Africa" series had some excellent stuff on how community-driven conservation can help both local wildlife and people, worth a watch if you can find it ^^
I think that focusing on the animals that are currently having trouble staying in our ecosystem is best, then after a bit of stabilization, moving onto extinct species. Because if we focus to much on the past and not enough of the future, then after a while there will be nothing left to go back to, if bringing back the extinct species doesn't work.
wooly mamoth could very easily be re-introduced in the candian tundra and NW territories also alaska. siberian is also a good candidate. those areas have perfectly healthy ecosystems that are if anything overpopulated with caribou and geese. introducing mamoths into those areas could only serve to re-balance the food to herbivore ratios current predators in those areas are also seeing a small population growth because they have so much prey food besides then we could have wooly mammoth hunting
I definitely agree that our focus should be on conserving the species that are actually still alive. Our moral obligation should be aimed towards minimizing the harm being done to current living species and their habitats. De-extinction does nothing to resolve the problems that are endangering species, it would just introduce new species into an already unstable environment. I don't see how that is helpful. Cool, yes. Helpful, not so much.
I for one see the attempted reintroduction of flora rather then fauna to be a better start. Perhaps bringing back the American Chestnut might be more feasible, but before that the current threatened species(elm, ash, eastern hemlock) must be preserved.
bring back the great auk , they were hunted to extinction during the mid 19th century. I think it would pretty cool to see them again in Newfoundland and other places within the Atlantic ocean, where they once called home.
I would love to see the Haast eagle brought back from extinction because they're awesome! But I'm not sure if bringing back a vicious eagle with a wingspan of 3 metres would really help the already suffering animal kingdom.
I think that seen the extinction rate at which we are we should focus on saving the species that we have, rather than bring back extinct species. The habitat available for wild animals is reduced every day, which complicates life for those animals that aren't extinct yet - puting extinct species back in those habitats will only make it more difficult to save the ones that are left, and there is no guarantee that the new one will survive. So basically we'll probably just make things even worse.
Conservation is important, but bringing back a woolly mammoth would be such a symbolic landmark in science and revive some of that spark of the awesomeness of human achievement that was inspired in people when people first landed on the moon. Also I would like to see creationists squirm as modern biology advances beyond their ego-centric theories of reality.
How would you get genetic diversity in the cloning process to even reestablish a species? You would be forced to clone 20-30 different samples at least just to get a stable breeding group that is diverse enough to build a stable inbred free species without a significant mutation weighing to host species or disability of the offspring. I'm just trying to picture a stable breeding group of "Dolly" the extinct sheep species.
