you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 11 hours ago* (6 children)

Why not? Because they're dangerous? Obviously there is some uncertainty with extinct animals but I don't think they'd be any more dangerous than elephants which still exist today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

    Resurrecting them and mammoths may help fight global warming. So maybe it's more dangerous not to have them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    I think this is somewhat speculative but there's only one way to find out...

    Unfortunately I think despite the hype from some startups de-extinction is an incredibly hard problem that will not be solved any time soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (2 children)

    Something about them stomping on lichen to allow grass to grow in the Arctic.

    Yadda yadda.. Good enough for me!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm actually quite curious if mega-herbivores would help reduce fire risk on a warming planet. If can be done with mechanical thinning or controlled burns but I don't see how we get the money and manpower to do this over the massive forested areas of western North America.

    But if there was an animal that ate and/or destroyed smaller trees and brush while leaving larger ones, they could reduce fuel loads for free. We know elephants do this in Africa so perhaps mastodons and mammoths did the same thing in the ancient American ecosystem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment