Comments on: Will we ever bring back the woolly mammoth?

By: Cord

Cord — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:43:47 +0000

The scientific rationale behind this is strong, but as others have noted, save in the case of animals who may presently be headed toward extinction without genetic intervention, why bring back a species that has already died out once? I have to give a Mary Shelley inspired shudder at the comment of one person above who suggests that, even should a baby mammoth be born and die, it is worth it to study the carcass. The old saw that “might is right at Rome” rings hollow in human issues, and with humans behind the science, I’m not so certain we wouldn’t be better off trying to figure out how to restore the environment rather than reintroducing something the environment killed off thousands of years ago.

By: Natalee

Natalee — Mon, 20 May 2013 00:14:30 +0000

I think the woolly mammoth has been extinct for many years now. It would be cool to see a long-extinct woolly mammoth now. We miss a lot of things 65 million and a half years ago when the woolly mammoth where living. I wonder where the woolly mammoth’s new habitat will be at when the come. It would also be cool to ride a woolly mammoth or keep it as a pet. I know that scientist can bring woolly mammoth’s back to life. In 2003 a team of Spanish and French scientist re-created the extinct Pyrenean ibex. Although the animal didn’t survive long. But the woolly mammoth might live long. It depends. Although I bet we can bring a new set of species that are known to be extinct back. Some people say it’s impossible but it’s not always impossible if you don’t give up. The woolly mammoth is a big specie and it is kind of like a elephant with hair. But it is a little different with the size and the shape a little. Woolly mammoth are related to elephant’s. I would love to see a woolly mammoth. Also I would love to learn more about it. Like where it’s going to live and how big it is. I hope other people learn more about it to. It is a fascinating animal. And a long-extinct elephant a little. But how will the woolly mammoth act when it comes? will it get along with the other animals? No one but the scientist maybe know for sure. I do hope the woolly mammoth may cause no harm. But I do hope we get to see one in person.

By: Alysss

Alysss — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:59:45 +0000

I LOVE this. Mammoths r my favorite animals,but this kinda reminds me Jurassic Park. But i would love to see a mammoth in a zoo or something

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:16:09 +0000

Even if the newborn mammoth died minutes after birth, something great has been done. Science now has a mammoth carcuss that is newly dead instead of dead for 1000′s of years. A lot can be learned from this.

By: Federico

Federico — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:50:25 +0000

Whilst the Mammoth(s) themselves would be more of a visual flare than an actual species inhabiting the earths’ ecosystem, their cloning would bring GREAT public attention (money) to conservation efforts, further it would boost the funding of cloning projects for extinct species that shouldn’t be extinct, like the thylacine and the passenger pidgeon which other commenters noted. We would have a very lucky single or few mammoths and a whole renewed interest for conservation.

By: Dwayne

Dwayne — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:49:33 +0000

Cloning a mammoth is a GREAT idea! Why start with something small ( They’ve already experimented with a mouse). A large – pun intended- project like this, captures the imagination in the way that reviving the Indonesian Flores Cave Rat would never do. If these folks wish to revive a Mammoth, I say Gods Speed to them!

By: jeg

jeg — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:05:49 +0000

Why a mammoth? Wouldn’t it be easier to do an animal that hasn’t been extinct for as long? What about a passenger pigeon? I just think mammoth is a little over-ambitious. Also, it’s been gone so long there really isn’t a niche for it anymore. I understand you get more funding for something more interesting, I just think they should have picked something interesting and perhaps a little more doable.

By: Gaddy Bergmann

Gaddy Bergmann — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:54:10 +0000

I think “de-extinction,” if at all possible someday, would be a great tool. In the debate on this issue, the most reasonable argument against “resurrection” is that it might create a false sense of security regarding extinction. However, I don’t anticipate this. As Ben Franklin put it, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As long as we make it clear that conservation is clearly preferable to resurrection, then animals like woolly mammoths, thylacines, passenger pigeons, and others might be brought back after we banished them, to live alongside more abundant members of those ecosystems. This project is very technically difficult, but I think it is morally justified to pursue it.

By: Kate Jones

Kate Jones — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:16:26 +0000

Species perish constantly, whether through human ageny or naturally. And hundreds of new species arise or are discovered annually. No one has mentioned whether our intercession to bring back extinct beings is potentially opening a Pandora’s box of potential harm to ourselves and the planet, perhaps by reviving deadly microbes as well. The insatiable human thirst for new knowledge and conquering new frontiers is, however, our birthright for having evolved such brains. Would the knowledge and technology gained thereby at some point help our own survival and adaptation to live in an altered world, or on other planets? We are genetically engineering new plants and foods. Is not that already a grave danger to our present wellbeing?

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:54:49 +0000

Are we going to resurrect a mammoth in order to keep it in a zoo? What’s the point in that? If we bring back the mammoth, it should be to re-occupy its former niche in an existing ecosystem. But their ecosystem no longer exists. Our zoos already have a hard time preserving animals that are in danger of extinction in the wild because humans have manipulated their natural homes to the point they no longer support them. Wouldn’t it be more productive, useful, etc. to restore recently extinct animals to their still existing habitats? As a birder, I would be able to get behind restoring the Great Auk, Ivory-billed Woodpecker and other birds that would have a chance to re-establish wild populations. I am sure there are recently extinct mammal species that could also be brought back to live in the wild. I think that would be infinitely more worthwhile than bringing back a couple of mammoths – not even enough to establish a reasonable breeding group – to live in a zoo with no hope of ever living in the wild and possibly dying out after a few generations from inbreeding.