John59 wrote:

What happens if we bring back the mammoth and people start killing them for their tusks?

Then maybe they'll stop killing elephants ....

On the other hand, what if mammoths exposed to the hiv virus produce a vacine which can immunise people against the disease?

"What ifs" can always go both ways.

Then maybe they'll stop killing elephants ....


So, you'd risk sacrificing animals that weren't meant to be here for those already here?

What if they still kill elephants, kill the mammoths AND they find some cure.
Won't do much good if the mammoths become extinct once again. Won't help the elephants and we would be at ground zero.

I say let sleeping dogs lie. When we can prove that we can take care of the species still on this planet, including humans, then we may earn the right to re-introduce others into the mix.

jmo

Are we gonna dedicate Kentucky as the mammoth's future habitat?
Kinda kill two birds with one stone?

I don't see trading the slaughter of one animal for another as a good thing.

True, there are many possibilities. But that's my point; we don't know the outcome of these actions until we take them.

The "killing elephants" was kind of tongue in cheek......

No, we don't know the outcome of our actions AND we don't know the outcome of inaction either. In fact we don't even know if the process will work or what other discoveries might be made trying to make it work.

animals that weren't meant to be here

But there's the problem Rose. In many cases they are extinct because of human actions and many more are heading in that direction. And its often the case that those extinctions also have a negative effect on the environment. So, they were meant to be here.
At the same time there have been programs which have brought back species from the edge of extinction. I'm all in favour of those programs. I see this as just an extention of those.

In many cases they are extinct because of human actions and many more are heading in that direction. And its often the case that those extinctions also have a negative effect on the environment. So, they were meant to be here.

As far as we know. We do not know for sure and it's been purely speculated that they were hunted to extinction. Mammoths, for instance, may have died out because the climate became too heated for their wooly coverings before they had a chance to adapt through several generations. Their gestation period is thought to be 22 months, with a single calf, so any adaptation/mutation would take a long time. They may have died out because their natural source of nourishment, grasses, died because of a drought. We don't know enough about what happened to them then to bugger around with bringing them back. I, for one, wouldn't want them to be "re-created" only to suffer and die anyway.

If extinction had a negative impact at the time, then nature has more than likely filled that gap and bringing them back could do the same and endanger a lot of other species.

an addendum to the speculated: "They may hold the cure for AIDS or something." They may also harbor bacteria and viruses with which we are unfamiliar.

As I said:

Until we can take care of existing species, including humans, we should leave well enough alone.

Now, I'm done with this circular discussion. We shall agree to disagree, ok?

Well, we can agree to disagree, but none of your points apply to passenger pigeons or tasmanian tigers.

Seems to me that you are running a "if we cant fix everything then we shouldn't fix anything" kind of aan argument.