Woolly Mammoth herds and Neanderthal Villages

We recently wrote about the wisdom of efforts to regenerate a Woolly Mammoth – “Cloning the Woolly Mammoth”.    My take was that thought needed to be given to exactly why the scientific community would be doing this – simply because it could be done?

It was interesting to read the concerns of the New York Times editorial board.  They did not reflect on the ethical issues surrounding the need for the regeneration. In fact, they described the resurrection of this species as “fun”.  They expressed concern however for the fact that the Mammoth would be lonely.  They wrote: “We’re just not sure that it would be all that much fun for the mammoth.” Seems the Times wants scientists to be thinking about a Mammoth companion for science’s creation. (Sounds awfully familiar to a Biblical creation story).

Are the feelings of the Mammoth, and its living conditions, the primary determinative of whether this use of scientific skills and resources is prudent?

How would the Times resolve these obstacles?  The herds could roam the “the frigid wastes of Siberia and North America” but the Times opined that they “are disappearing all too fast”.  No concerns about how the Mammoth relocation would impact the people who live in the area.  Without natural predators, how would society deal with them foraging around and destroying a pipeline or wondering into a town as moose and elk do today?

The Times chose not to comment on the broader issue implicated in its original news report.   What opinions does the Times hold on the efforts to regenerate a Neanderthal human?  Would the Times indicate that the primary determinators are that rebirth human’s feelings or living conditions? – Or should society be concerned first with the question of why there is a need to tamper with the prudent results of natural selection – by going back in time?

To follow the Times logic, Neanderthal villages would have to built first to give the world’s newest souls a replica of their former life.  Would wireless internet be installed, or would occupants be condemned to functioning as they did 30,000 years ago for “fun”?  What would be the immigration policy in regard to those Neanderthals who choose to leave the village?  Would they be barred from leaving?  Or would leaving depend on the microeconomic impact of whether they would perform manual labor that no one else wants to do?

Has the word “ethics”, the study of morality’s effect on conduct, been bred out of public discourse?

It may still not be nice to fool with Mother Nature, even if we think we are too smart to be fooled.

Michael D’Angelo

NYT: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth?