I have to say this is a very interesting topic and though many people have covered it, this was the most comprehensive and informative video I've seen on the topic. Another great video!
So what I’m wondering is if we make hybrids like the saber tooth tiger or other certain predators what if there to dangerous and they start hunting species that are already existing that are weaker and they go extinct
Great video you are a great youtuber by the way I have an opinion it is possible to clone prehistoric animals through genetic editing, cloning and genetic engineering such as archelon(a close relative of the leatherback turtle)by altering its DNA, gigantophitecus(a relative of the orangutan)by altering its DNA, paraceratherium altering the DNA of the rhinoceros(reactivating rhino genes using reverse engineering or genetics to turn it into the extinct giant version with the help of genetic manipulation), megalania altering the DNA of the monitor lizard, sivatherium altering the DNA of the okapi, andrewsarchus altering the DNA of the hippopotamus, synapsids altering the DNA of mammals and finally thousands and millions of prehistoric animals but it is still impossible or possible to clone or recreate them to identify if the habitats where they lived before becoming extinct exist such as the holocene,eocene,pleistocene,oligocene and paleocene despite what I just mentioned is something excessive even if those propabilities are wrong?
Aside from the point that Michael Crichton wrote a book (Jurassic Park) as to why this is a bad idea, it’s just simply a bad idea. These animals went extinct for a reason. Their habitats changed, their food sources changed, they simply failed to adapt. They were selected by evolution for extinction because they no longer served a purpose. Bring back extinct species would damage our current living species. They’d be invasive. Especially animals that died out thousands of years ago. Animals are competing enough right now with their current competition and lack of habitat. We should focus on preserving what animals we have.
While exciting scientifically, I'm very concerned that the ability to casually revive an extinct species will make people de-value wildlife even more. Why work hard to protect a species when you can always just create another? My biggest concern is that this will cause people to cause even more destruction to habitats, since if we can just pop a new animal out in a lab then why preserve the territory they would have used to reproduce? This would have catastrophic consequences for all life, including ourselves. IMHO people should focus less on how to play god and more on how to preserve and protect what we already have. Life on our planet is already rare and precious and perfect, it only needs us to get out of its way.
I think it would be fascinating but also agree with all the points you made and have that perspective in mind also. Id worry about loss of habitat and conservation for other species even not endangered and mostly the cost. I keep picturing some Jurassic Park type situation 😅.
My compliments on your very clear explanation of this topic including pointing-out the many unanswered questions. I can't help wonder, given that evolution and extinction have been natural processes since the start of live on the planet, will de-extinction repair the errors made by humans or is it interfering with nature and thereby introducing another human-induced problem.
What a great question. Ultimately the answer will depend on a lot of different factors, like which species we target, where they are released, and how well their behaviour matches the original. I think we can be certain those involved are motivated to repair damage, but we will have to see how it all plays out.
I think this is a waste of money right now. We need to focus on preserving environments and let nature do its thing. We can’t even get along as a human race. Let’s not fund animal experimentation.
I think this idea is a complete waste and is very misguided. We need to save the animals that are going extinct now, not bring back those that are already gone! I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. Why bring them back when nothing that has caused the extinction in the first place has changed? It will just continue to happen. Animals would do just fine without human intervention or interference.
Great question. At this stage, scientists have found that cloned animals can struggle with poor immune systems, which makes them more vulnerable to disease. There are several possible reasons for this, including damaged DNA during cloning, the fact cloned DNA is "old", or abnormal gene expression. In the case of de-extinction, critical immune system genes may be missing, or non-functional. So its not so much they are born without an immune system, but for many reasons it may just not function as it should. I hope that helps.
If you wish to help the environment, bringing back species that became extinct due to change in climate is not the answer, you want to help the environment, either have the Human population reduced globally to 1/10th of it's current, or have the Human race becomes extinct. It's that, or watch the world die.
I have to say this is a very interesting topic and though many people have covered it, this was the most comprehensive and informative video I've seen on the topic. Another great video!
Glad you enjoyed it! That means a lot coming from Wild World!
That depends on what species you want to bring back.
Anyone else hearing this and thinking "Jurassic Park"...?
So what I’m wondering is if we make hybrids like the saber tooth tiger or other certain predators what if there to dangerous and they start hunting species that are already existing that are weaker and they go extinct
Great video you are a great youtuber by the way I have an opinion it is possible to clone prehistoric animals through genetic editing, cloning and genetic engineering such as archelon(a close relative of the leatherback turtle)by altering its DNA, gigantophitecus(a relative of the orangutan)by altering its DNA, paraceratherium altering the DNA of the rhinoceros(reactivating rhino genes using reverse engineering or genetics to turn it into the extinct giant version with the help of genetic manipulation), megalania altering the DNA of the monitor lizard, sivatherium altering the DNA of the okapi, andrewsarchus altering the DNA of the hippopotamus, synapsids altering the DNA of mammals and finally thousands and millions of prehistoric animals but it is still impossible or possible to clone or recreate them to identify if the habitats where they lived before becoming extinct exist such as the holocene,eocene,pleistocene,oligocene and paleocene despite what I just mentioned is something excessive even if those propabilities are wrong?
Aside from the point that Michael Crichton wrote a book (Jurassic Park) as to why this is a bad idea, it’s just simply a bad idea. These animals went extinct for a reason. Their habitats changed, their food sources changed, they simply failed to adapt. They were selected by evolution for extinction because they no longer served a purpose. Bring back extinct species would damage our current living species. They’d be invasive. Especially animals that died out thousands of years ago. Animals are competing enough right now with their current competition and lack of habitat. We should focus on preserving what animals we have.
While exciting scientifically, I'm very concerned that the ability to casually revive an extinct species will make people de-value wildlife even more. Why work hard to protect a species when you can always just create another? My biggest concern is that this will cause people to cause even more destruction to habitats, since if we can just pop a new animal out in a lab then why preserve the territory they would have used to reproduce? This would have catastrophic consequences for all life, including ourselves. IMHO people should focus less on how to play god and more on how to preserve and protect what we already have. Life on our planet is already rare and precious and perfect, it only needs us to get out of its way.
I think it would be fascinating but also agree with all the points you made and have that perspective in mind also. Id worry about loss of habitat and conservation for other species even not endangered and mostly the cost. I keep picturing some Jurassic Park type situation 😅.
Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
they should,to help stop climate change,that's like the whole point lmao
@@ali-ut3xf No such thing as climate change. Been hearing that lie my whole life.
Dr Sam Munroe TheMeg 2 is out! You should react to it in the next video
You won't have to wait much longer. It is in the pipeline :)
@@drsammunroe:D
My compliments on your very clear explanation of this topic including pointing-out the many unanswered questions. I can't help wonder, given that evolution and extinction have been natural processes since the start of live on the planet, will de-extinction repair the errors made by humans or is it interfering with nature and thereby introducing another human-induced problem.
What a great question. Ultimately the answer will depend on a lot of different factors, like which species we target, where they are released, and how well their behaviour matches the original. I think we can be certain those involved are motivated to repair damage, but we will have to see how it all plays out.
I always wonder what IF a mammoths suddenly gets revived to the current world and then realized the environment that's revolved around them
I think this is a waste of money right now. We need to focus on preserving environments and let nature do its thing. We can’t even get along as a human race. Let’s not fund animal experimentation.
I think this idea is a complete waste and is very misguided. We need to save the animals that are going extinct now, not bring back those that are already gone! I'm sorry this makes no sense to me.
Why bring them back when nothing that has caused the extinction in the first place has changed? It will just continue to happen.
Animals would do just fine without human intervention or interference.
Isn’t the true hard part is to recreate there immune systems? Clones apart from dolly was born without them?
Great question. At this stage, scientists have found that cloned animals can struggle with poor immune systems, which makes them more vulnerable to disease. There are several possible reasons for this, including damaged DNA during cloning, the fact cloned DNA is "old", or abnormal gene expression. In the case of de-extinction, critical immune system genes may be missing, or non-functional. So its not so much they are born without an immune system, but for many reasons it may just not function as it should. I hope that helps.
imagine if this happens to early hominids
I dunno, but I DO know you'd bring back the Meg!
I won't deny that I would be very tempted ;)
Love how when it affects US it's a crisis. Yeah, no. I think you mean well, but I reject your apparent premise.
If you wish to help the environment, bringing back species that became extinct due to change in climate is not the answer, you want to help the environment, either have the Human population reduced globally to 1/10th of it's current, or have the Human race becomes extinct. It's that, or watch the world die.