Some of you may remember the baby mammoth discovered in Siberia back in May 2007. That was an astounding discovery, considering the mammoth’s body was fully preserved. Scientists had been studying the preserved baby mammoth, named Lyuba, for clues on her life and how she died, and for more information on the life of a woolly mammoth. However, scientists have also brought up the idea of cloning the mammoth using the DNA still preserved in Lyuba, and 70% of the mammoth’s genome has already been decoded. This means we would have the capability of bringing back the woolly mammoth from extinction, but that doesn’t mean it would be the best thing to do.
It’s good to be curious, but “curiosity killed the cat” as they always say. Bringing back an extinct animal can have multiple side-effects.
1. The ecosystem has changed.
For one thing, the ecosystem has changed since the mammoth went extinct. The mammoth has been extinct for thousands of years now, and without the process of evolution, it would be near impossible for it to find a niche in today’s ecosystem. The organisms living today have evolved and cooperated/cohabited with each other over the course of hundreds, even thousands, of years. Where would the mammoth fit in? Besides, it’s a whole different world from what the mammoth lived in, which was during the Ice Age. Earth goes through a cycle of cool down and warm up stages. The earth is currently experiencing its next warm up stage that is being sped up by human impacts. Compared to what the mammoth lived in when it was alive, the environment today would not be very suitable for it.
2. Invasive species.
Going back to the mammoth being unable to find its own niche, say it does, but it takes the role as an invasive species? There are many problems with invasive species today, being introduced into another habitat that is not their native habitat, and completely taking over the area. The zebra mussels in the Great Lakes serve as an example, which have been out of control for many years. Of course, it’s easier for smaller organisms, such as the zebra mussels and various plants species, to become an invasive species rather than megafauna (large animals), but this effect shouldn’t be ruled out.
3. Animals struggling today with human impacts.
The animals living today are struggling enough with human impacts and encroachment, so why should we bring another animal into the equation? Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the ones who are currently living? There are animals living today that are critically endangered from habitat destruction/degradation and other human factors, such as poaching. Besides, who’s to say the mammoth wouldn’t suffer the same fate? More on habitat loss in the U.S. (and relative to other parts of the world).
4. It would be Anthropocentric.
Anthropocentrism states that humans come first, no matter what. Speaking from a moral standpoint, if we were to bring the mammoth back, we wouldn’t be doing it for the mammoth or the environment, but for ourselves and our own curiosity and amusement. If the mammoth could not be released into the wild, it would be kept in an enclosure simply for humans to gaze upon. It would ultimately serve no other purpose but to be an exhibit and a testament to how far our technology can go.
While it would be fascinating to see woolly mammoths roaming around, it wouldn’t be very practical. It may seem cool in theory, but in reality it could cause many problems, and it would be best if we didn’t realize that after the fact.
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” -- Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
