all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 42 minutes ago

Would a 10,000 year old tooth even be considered a fossil?

One technical definition defines fossils as remains “‘not demonstrably postdating the beginning of the Holocene” (i.e., older than 11,700 years).

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 hours ago

    Ancient fediverse📌

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

    So sad these beasties went extinct... 10,000 years sounds like a long time but geologically speaking we only just missed them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (5 children)

    Sad? Not sure I'd want to live in the same time period as them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago* (4 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 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (2 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 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child)

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

    Yadda yadda.. Good enough for me!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago

    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
  • [–] 5 points 7 hours ago

    We didn't miss them we ate them.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Very cool!

    Also, unless the image is not from this finding, the word should be teeth. There's clearly more than one

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    Banana for scale?

  • source
  • [+] 0 points 6 hours ago*