In the article, “Scientists Say They Could Bring Back Woolly Mammoths. But Maybe They Shouldn’t”, Neuman discusses the debate of whether is it is good idea to “resurrect” the Woolly Mammoth in the 21st century. Some experts like professor George Church are in favor of this idea, and argue its potential benefits in reversing climate change. Despite the benefits explained in the article, I disagree with such claims to bring back the species.
One reason why I disagree with such arguments is because I believe that it would be too costly—and frankly unrealistic—to bet on an animal to reverse climate change for us. Professor Love Dalen states, “there is virtually no evidence in support of the hypothesis that…mammoths would have any impact on climate change.” Due to this lack of substantial evidence, it wouldn’t make sense to invest $15 million in this project. Alternatively, these funds and scientific techniques are most likely better off to address species that are currently endangered. Paleontologist Joseph Frederickson states, “If you can create a mammoth or at least an elephant that looks like a good copy of a mammoth that could survive in Siberia, you could do quite a bit for the white rhino or the giant panda.” With this type of technology and scientific study, the most sensible route to take is prevention rather than reversal.
In addition to the unrealistic allocation of time and money on an extinct species, there are many ethical problems associated with bringing back the Woolly Mammoth, which hasn’t roamed the earth in 10,000 years. For instance, assuming that the Woolly Mammoth would adapt perfectly to today’s environment and not disrupt our current ecosystems would be irresponsible. Frederickson says, “bringing back something that has all the characteristics that would have thrived in the Pleistocene doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to survive today”. Not only does this apply to the physical environment, but also to how these animals would hypothetically interact socially with other species. Professor Matthew Cobb emphasizes how Woolly Mammoths were a social animal, and it is not guaranteed that they would be accepted into a given ecosystem by other animals. This situation, funny enough, reminds me of Captain America in the 1940’s who was later defrosted into the 21st century. Although he was able to adapt well, it is clear that he personally did not feel like he fit in, which is a problem extended beyond just basic survival.
Neuman concludes his article stating that bringing back the Woolly Mammoth could be influenced by our guilt as a significant factor to their original extinction. This perspective in my opinion, is quite selfish and inconsiderate—with the lack of scientific evidence, high risks of failure, and substantial ethical issues, it goes to show that the main reason to resurrecting the Woolly Mammoth stems from human desire and the need to mitigate our past wrongdoings, instead of focusing on how we can improve for the future.
In Avengers Endgame, the movie ends with Steve Rogers deciding to go back in the 1950’s to live the life Tony Stark told him to go get. If we can learn anything from this, it is that we were all meant to live our lives in the era we were brought into…and this includes the Woolly Mammoth.