The CIA Just Invested In Woolly Mammoth Resurrection Technology

Can they do this?

https://theintercept.com/2022/09/28/cia-extinction-woolly-mammoth-dna/

AS A RAPIDLY ADVANCING climate emergency turns the planet ever hotter, the Dallas-based biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences has a vision: “To see the Woolly Mammoth thunder upon the tundra once again.” Founders George Church and Ben Lamm have already racked up an impressive list of high-profile funders and investors, including Peter Thiel, Tony Robbins, Paris Hilton, Winklevoss Capital — and, according to the public portfolio its venture capital arm released this month, the CIA.

Colossal says it hopes to use advanced genetic sequencing to resurrect two extinct mammals — not just the giant, ice age mammoth, but also a mid-sized marsupial known as the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, that died out less than a century ago. On its website, the company vows: “Combining the science of genetics with the business of discovery, we endeavor to jumpstart nature’s ancestral heartbeat.”

 

Bringing back extinct animals that died out in the last ice age is good. At least I hope so. Let's just hope that the mammoth doesn't get poached for its tusks the way the African elephant is.

I don't know about bringing back a Tasmanian tiger, though. What if it hunts us!?

 

The Intercept? This has got to be a joke.

That is one of the most garbage sites I have ever seen used in here as a reference.

 

You mean, like, are they allowed, or are they capable?

As to the first, well its the CIA, so that question doesnt matter.

As to whether it can actually be done: prolly. We've been growing things in tanks for quite a while. Growing them in cows for quite a while before that. I figure its 50/50 chance they already cloned, grew and destroyed a mammoth, they're just gonna do it 'officially' now so they dont have to destroy it.

My question is- whats the investment? Theme park? Specialty steak house? Or just for fun?

 

If they pull it off, whatever zoo they are planted in will be a great investment for someone.

Let me in on the IPO.

 

It is majorly ironic that they try to recreate a wooly mammoth as we thaw the tundra where they lived.

 

The climate is getting hotter, we are all going to burn up! Let’s bring back the woolly mammoth!

 

It has been thawing for tens of thousands of years.

Otherwise, we would still have glaciers covering the Dakotas. And tundra and permafrost in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

 

Yes, that's what climatology tells us.

 

Screw what "climatologists" say, that is what geology proves.

Manhattan and Boston are built on top of glacial moraines, and the proof of it being true covers huge areas of North America, Europe, and Asia. Geologists proved it long before "climatology" was even a thing.

One only needs to see the landscape that still covers states like Oklahoma which is still recovering to know that was true.

"Climatologists" can prove nothing of what North America was like in the last ice age or when it ended. That proof is only found by geologists.

And once again, you just keep failing. Proof of climate conditions, flora and fauna, the extent of glacial advancement and how far they covered the continents? That is all geology, not "climatology".

I laugh because you can not even point to the correct branch of science that proved these things.

 

Ice cores naturally marked by layers of volcanic ash were a major contributor.

Plus, those ice cores gave samples of ancient atmosphere, allowing the study of the atmosphere in those ancient times.

These and other factors come together to tell a story. Depending on just one line of evidence when many are available is not a mistake that scientists make.

 

Tell me exactly how ice cores prove climate in North America.

Once again, you completely fail to grasp how science actually works. Mixing and matching completely different areas of study in your own mind, and spouting out complete gibberish.

 

There are doubts that the Thylacine is genuinely extinct. Given it's apparent demise is so recent, we can't really know for sure. There is some credible footage of animals bearing their very unique physionomy, captured in southern mainland Australia. Most captures are either kangaroos, foxes with mange, or canines moving oddly .. but there are some which can't be any of the above. Oddly enough, the most convincing footage was captured in a surburban setting, when the animal was seen escaping down the side of a house. Whatever the creature is in that piece of footage, it definitely isn't a roo or a fox. The tail is set too low, and is robust and long, and the spine profile is Thylacine, not canus.

 

I'm not sure what your problem is here.

The importance of combining information from multiple methods can't be overemphasized.

Relying on a single methodology is to be strongly avoided.

 

But the data from singular far distant sources can be overemphasized.

Ice cores only give the barest hint at the conditions globally, they are first and foremost an indicator of the conditions where they were made.

They can no more tell if there is an exceptionally heavy monsoon in India than they can if the American South-West is exceptionally dry. Because they are taken where they are, which is neither of those places.

Now, things like tree rings will show that, in the location where such weather occurs.

You see, this is why you keep failing. You can not seem to grasp such absolutely simple concepts. And I keep repeating them to you over and over, and you still keep doing the exact same thing.

 

The advantage of ice cores is that they can go WAY the heck back. The rings they contain include particulate matter than can be identified as coming from specific volcanoes, thus helping to confirm dating. And, the ice cores contain trapped samples of air from those ancient periods, allowing scientists a view on what the atmosphere was like back then.

The objective here is to find multiple sources of information, so that any model of what Earth was like in ancient times can be built with the cross checking of the various sources.

So, paleoclimatology does include fossilized life forms, such as plants and animals.

Ignoring ice cores would be just plain stupid. So, they certainly are not ignored.

You should read about paleoclimatology before making your decisions on who is stupid.

 

And exactly how much does an ice core in Antarctica or Greenland tell you about climate in California? Or Germany? Or Hawaii?

Fossils are valuable because they tell you the kind of life an area would support where it is found.

Ice cores only tell you for the most part the climate where they were taken.

No matter how often I tell you the same thing, you keep refusing to recognize that simple fact. As I have said, you are one of the most un-scientific people I have ever met. You only have your beliefs, and only like when you find things that you think support your beliefs. That is not science.

 

Yes, ice core data adds to understanding of Earth's average temperature, long term cycle times, atmosphere, etc.

Data doesn't become worthless just because it doesn't tell the whole picture or specifically address particular states or countries.

Remember that any model of climate has to account for evidence of all types from all sources.

 

And where did I say it was worthless? I simply said that one should not overemphasize the importance, and it is only a tiny picture of a much larger set of data.

Once again, you are so damned concerned with showing that everything you believe in is the absolute truth that it blinds you to reality. You are not going to find paleoclimatologists looking into conditions in North America looking very much at Antarctic ice cores. They are going to look at the actual location that they want to know about. Not ancient snow from half a world away that will tell them nothing of real value.

 

There you go again, making assumptions about what scientists in this field do.

 

Maybe they are well informed on the cooling effects large herbivores have on permafrost ecosystems and have an interest in returning those ecosystems to their natural state with the help of mammoths.

 

Large animals cause cooling?? Seriously?

 

Yep. The short explanation is they decrease soil temperature to help maintain permafrost. Trampling of snow reduces the insulating effect during the winter so soils cool more during that time. Here are a couple papers to catch you up…

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2017.0437

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60938-y

It’s funny people think we can decrease the concentration of large herbivores in an ecosystem by orders of magnitude and completely eliminate the largest species and not expect consequences.

The first paper explains how eliminating mammoths changed the ecosystem drastically, leading to warmer soils and less carbon sequestration.

Cool, huh?

 

Your cites show the complexity of the issue.

It doesn't suggest that reintroducing two large species of mammal would combat climate change.

Plus, let's remember that these mammals failed in the past.

Finally, their interest isn't stated as combating climate change. They say:

"we endeavor to jumpstart nature’s ancestral heartbeat."

 

Yes, ecosystems are complex. That’s why removing core parts of them leads to negative consequences. It’s not as simple as CO2 bad, solar panels good. Biology is the heart of it all. We should remember that and use biological processes to heal the earth.

Who said anything about reintroducing two species to combat climate change? I said large herbivores help preserve and restore permafrost. The presented studies show that is indeed the case. This includes mammoths, musk ox, reindeer, etc. but yes two would certainly help combat climate change. Any two. Although more is better. The diversity we saw there before we altered populations would be preferable.

No. Your ancestors killed them. Just like you and your ancestors killed forests. Now you must live with the consequences, or use nature to fix what you broke.

How do you think all that carbon was sequestered in permafrost to begin with? It wasn’t magical tundra fairies. It was the action of herbivores on flora.

Yes, and I’ve showed you what that “heartbeat” does. It preserves and restores ecosystems to health and sustainability. What do you think nature's ancestral heartbeat refers to? Just a catchy phrase? Do you think mammoths were just a novelty and didn’t perform a vital function in the ecosystem? Aren’t “hearts” and “heartbeats” foundational to life?

This is why I fear we will never actually improve our planet. Nobody is interested in using nature’s methods and remedies nature itself perfected over eons. Instead, egotistical humans think they can fix what they broke without using natural systems. Oh well. Maybe we will wake up someday.