• atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Does anyone else feel like this is irresponsible? Like, I get it, humans have been destroying the ecosystems of endangered and extinct animals for awhile now. But the world is actively warming up. And even if this is successful, how do we create enough of them to survive and procreate with defects etc. And where the hell will they live? I just have some concerns.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago
    • Step 1: acquire genetic material
    • Step 2: supplement material with closely related extant species <- We are here
    • Step 3: Get an egg cell with your Frankenstein-DNA to survive and divide
    • Step 4: Produce a healthy baby
    • Step 5: Get a small population in a Zoo/Park
    • Step 6: have a permanent wild population in a specific area
    • Step 7: have enough of those areas to declare repopulation a success

    Is fixating on the mammoths here first-world centrism? The article mentions 4 other species that have way better chances. Also, given how far we are from actual wild mammoths, that “it can solve climate change” argument is just wrong the way it’s been presented.

  • vegeta@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I hope they have put a substantial amount of thought into potential problems that could arise. (Not that it will actually be like JP)

    • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      To be fair, I think research on mammoth cloning started a good while ago and, if scientific research is anything like a start-up (spitballing here, I have no clue), doing a massive reorientation mid-process ends up costing more in the long term.

      Still MFW we’re cloning woolly mammoths on a boiling planet. Lol. Lmao, even.

    • essteeyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not everyone can work specifically on the one thing you find most pressing. Some people are hairdressers, some people work in a supermarket, some people are learning about genetics, some people are actors.

      The platform you’re posting on isn’t essential for saving the planet, should it still exist? The servers it uses create pollution.

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know, bringing back some of the species that this burning caused to go extinct - instead of the celebs mentioned in the article - would be nice.

  • StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve said this a million times before, but if we’re playing gods anyway, can’t we make them dog sized also?

    I would totally get one or maybe two.

  • wieson@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Articles about deextinction often reference the Pyrenean Ibex that died 7 minutes after birth. Why has nobody tried that one again?

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    So we’re talking about de-extinction at a time when 70% of the planet’s biodiversity has been lost in the last 50 years?

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yet another thing we have entire books and movie series about what will go wrong, and probably how. Yet somehow a way will be found to make it go wrong in exactly those ways.