that being said though, environments worldwide have changed drastically in the last few hundred years alone. climates are changing, invasive animals have spread out and there's a lot of extinctions going on as we speak. some species simply will not survive in what was once their home, and others will upset the already tenuous balance struck in some. we need to be REALLY careful with this and i'm sorry to say that having some romantic idea of 'restoring what we ruined' isn't going to help.
I find it interesting how this is, in some ways, an extension of the kind of 'rewilding' debates you get in Europe. In the UK, for example, we got rid of all native predators capable of killing deer (bears, lynxs and finally wolves). Clearly, the ecological consequences of that are bound to be vast - there has been quite a lot of research in places like Yellowstone showing how the removal (and reintroduction) of large predators can have a cascade effect on the rest of the ecosystem. The problem is that in most parts of the UK there haven't been large predators for hundreds of years and in the intervening period almost every inch of the country has been managed or shaped in some way by human activity. So what exactly is 'natural'? This is exacerbated by the deer population rising dramatically in the 20th century as a result of land use changes and the fact that, while in mainland Europe wolves and other carnivores are recolonising habitats on their own, that can't happen on an island. The mammoth thing is a similar deal, just on a much longer time-frame.
We can't even keep the existing bloody elephant and rhino populations safe from poaching. How can we create, introduce, and protect test tube creations?
I cannot believe this channel has less than a million subs. Superb videos. Well thought out and researched data, pleasant and well spoken host, entertaining to boot? Keep it up everyone
Mammoths lived throughout the northern hemisphere, but a problem would be the fact that the ecosystem has changed since then. The steppes mammoths once grazed on have been replaced by forests, so they'd starve to death. It's more likely that de-extinct mammoths will be a zoo attraction forever.
Plot twist: the 10 different Mammuthus species' genetic information is more convoluted than previously thought, with some even suggesting that they were actually just one species adapted to live in various habitats www.eartharchives.org/articles/north-american-mammoths-likely-interbred-with-one-another/ Which leads us back to the same old question: WHAT IS A SPECIES?
Good question Franz, spoiler alert there is no one single agreed upon definition and lines are blurry and we don't really know what a species is because time is not linear: th-cam.com/video/9fOfFlMe6ek/w-d-xo.html
eustacia03 You will need a very big pooper scooper. Or maybe not. Elephants eat other elephant dung to recycle gut bacteria. Mammoths probably would do the same.
Yes, Mammoths should be brought back. it would be a logistic nightmare to feed and carefore. but the concept de-extinction would have a great posterchild (the Mammoth) to get massive legitimacy and financial support
Recently saw the Bristle Mammoth in Ann Arbor. It's one thing to see pictures comparing them to humans in size, but to see their skulls is something different. They're HUGE! And their tusks are AMAZING. If anybody else is interested in these guys, go to Ann Arbor! The amount of deductions they've been able to get from one big skull is incredible.
0:52 HAHAHA I think he's just inside of a super clean room( that I don't know why) opening a Nitrogen refrigerator that usually stores BAC's library of genomes. Today things are moving to a more giant refrigerator with liquid nitrogen, because it's way more energy efficient. The detail, the precise info, the camera shots and the editing on this video is astounding. It's why I love this channel and wished it would be as big as SciShow or Veritasium, because you're definitely at their quality level. Aah, also on the subject of De-Extinction. I think it will become quite a significant matter of reacquiring extinct species. The decline of all modern taxa due to human activity is no joke. Ecologists and geologists all agree today we live in the Antropocene, a era marked by major decline of several life forms, a new big extinction event that may be as big as the *Great Dying* (or P-Tr extinction event). However we know nothing about the world itself, so in order to preserve this info for the future we must try to acquire as much data as possible now if we want to provide our future generations with a verisimilar version of the past, and not just bones and stuffed animals.
These days, it's standard practices to not only preserve the bones/skins of specimens coming through the Museum - we also take tissue samples of all of them to preserve that genetic information, too!
***** Indeed! And store those tissues in either something different than formaldehyde or at least conserve the genome inside of BAC's(for animals, I think plants you can actually conserve in something that doesn't even require this technique)
My question would be, if we have the technology, why don't we bring back something like the black rhino, which was only wiped out a couple of years ago. There are other rhinos that could be used to help with the effort, and they've been in Africa recently enough, one need not wonder where to put them. Just a thought. Save things becoming extinct now, rather than things the planet wiped out long ago.
you are an excellent presenter. you don't rush. you are articulate. your videos are so well built. which i could elaborate on but won't right now. you're videos are great for the classroom
Tigers are endangered now. They are apex prexators today, and do not co-exist well with humans. God only knows what dangers sabre tooth cats would present.
what a funny twist to a factual documentation! I have to say that already seeing some of the things behind this already from other shows is very convincing that we can bring them back and I'd love to see them come back too. one thing that could effect it is where ever we put them -say in a cold environment, wouldn't they be facing up against or take over other herd grazers like bison and other fauna like that and cause a unbalance in the food chain? in the end this was really great to listen too and I learnt something new - mastodon puns, but with all jokes aside this was really interesting. =)
Nature enthusiast well in places like Russia or north candida the open places are full of caribou and they breed faster then elephants so I doubt they will have much issue with them
humans: *wipe out mastodon* humans: *hunt mammoth to extinction* humans: *recklessly heat up planet with global warming* humans: "Well that took a lot of work *whew*. Okay. Now let's bring 'em back!"
I get so tired of answering the question of 'where to put them.' There is in FACT, a 'Pleistocene Park' in Siberia. It is the work of Sergei Zimov, and he is in the process of creating another just East of the Urals that will be more accessible for visitors. The whole POINT of returning mammoths to Siberia and the tundra is because they turn tundra and taiga forest into the 'mammoth steppe,' which is a FAR more productive environment for not just mammoth, but many other animals as well. The mammoth, as a 'keystone species' is what is required in order to restore the environment of the mammoth steppe, as Zimov has conclusively proven at Pleistocene Park with some 30 years worth of practical experiment. Look up 'Pleistocene Park,' and you will see for yourself 'where will we put them.'
I can answer this one for you Emily, mastodons, unlike mammoths had some really messed up ideas on tax reform. While mammoths are well known for responsible spending policies, mastodons (as I'm sure you are aware) were all to pro "big government" and endorsed overspending and crippling taxes on businesses and the middle class. Proud graduate of Cliff Claven University.
This video was so awesome, I had to subscribe immediately. I read something in National Geographic about mastodons and of course went straight to TH-cam. I love reading!!
Never knew mammoths and mastodons were so different kinda thought, it was like a class/phylum sort of relationship However now I know they differ quite a bit different.
We would put them in probably zoos only, releasing something of that size in an environment where its role is fulfilled by another animal can create some serious competition, if we did we would probably do it in Siberia and Alaska
As for where we would put them, I know a "Pleistocene Park" as been proposed in Siberia. Plus pretty much all the vegetation they ate is still around in North America. Horses lived in Ice Age North America but went extinct. When horses were (much) later reintroduced by Europeans, they did just fine.
That said, I imagine that ranchers who already complain about bison and wolves wouldn't care much for mammoths and saber-tooth cats. (Because if we're bringing back mammoths, I insist on bringing back sabertooths as well.)
I can imagine it right now... Many years after mammoths are cloned, they start getting poached... reducing their population by ALOT, but thanks to conservation they survive.
What about the "How"? While frozen mammoths had been found in the Arctic, scientists were not able to find a tissue sample suitable for cloning, as there was just too much damage to the cells.
This is a big topic of debate in science with many different facets on both sides. Like, the amount of financial support being poured into 'de-extinction' programs is seen as misguided by some, in light of current high rates of extinction still occurring today. Some argue for that kind of support instead be used to stabilize declining environments that are still around and not try to bring something back that went extinct possibly because of environmental changes we don't yet understand. We don't always know what these animals ate - what if that plant is now extinct, too? And mammoths are huge animals that require a lot of food. Will they be competing against other grazers in whatever habitat we put them in? If a suitable habitat doesn't exist... is it okay to keep them in captivity? And if so... what, exactly, have we 'preserved' after all? But at the same time, if we aren't looking into ways of preserving the unique genomes of these extinct organisms -- they very well could be gone forever, even if in the future we as a collective global society have a better grasp on human-created climate impact and habitat loss. There are an infinite number of questions surrounding this topic and I'd love to hear more thoughts.
The financial argument against de-extinction is fairly strong right now. These genetic experiments look more like hot-shot projects done for attention rather than good science. We can barely stabilize our existing elephant and rhino populations thanks to changing water and forest resources. The nature reserves that exist are scarcely allowing for genetic diversity in the primate and bird species we are trying to preserve. From whose environment are we going to chunk out a safe, poacher-free place to experiment on test-tube wildlife? If there is such money and resources what, other than hubris, justifies it going toward a genetic experiment rather than existing endangered wildlife?
Hypatia4242 While I wouldn't disagree with a word you have written, another answer to your rhetorical question (which I shall answer nevertheless) is sheer coolness. Something can be a foolish waste of money but very cool all the same. I'd absolutely love to see a mammoth in the flesh.
+Joshua Rosen: I get it. I just had this debate about going to Mars. It is cool and, like de-extinction, it draws on our natural instincts to explore and experiment. I want to see a mammoth too (and Mars). Maybe mammoths on Mars?
It felt fast paced. Was it, though? That's what it felt like. Was there a particular reason to make it so? Dont get me wrong, top quality, awesome to watch, very educative, loved it...just needed to pause and rewind it... like ten times. So it made me wonder....
cool video i just did my own custom of mastodon for my channel... i was inspired by the power ranger then growing up hahaha... but i had mammoth first just this year also... i just hope more people will be more aware about this epic creature they are awesome ... thanks for the infovideo its cool....
Great video by the way it is a miracle that they are going to clone the woolly Mammoth by 2027,I hope it happens with other animals but the question is when are they going to resurrect the Stellar sea cow,moa bird, elephant bird, smilodon and glyptodon it is only 2024 and not they have cloned these animals and all because of religion and ethics
I love it when scientists say "only 10,000 years ago". I know that in the history of that planet, that's suuuuuper short, but to a person, that's so hard to even imagine. Science is crazy guys.
and then there are geologists who are like "we've got fossils that are 3.7 billion years old - nbd" www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/the-worlds-oldest-fossils-are-37-billion-years-old/498056/
Just imagine how much food can a mammoth's corpse provide for animals like: The Siberian Tiger, Gray Wolf packs, Bears and all sorts of other smaller predators during the long cold winters in Siberia and Canada for example. Reintroducing the wooly mammoth to its original habitat may as well save other animals from future extinction.
Can I just say that the editing for The Brain Scoop has been freaking awesome these past few months? Let's give a round of applause to Brandon Brungard!
A UCSB alumn here and I can say that word on the street in the archaeology dept. is that yes, there are already people working on bringing back the pygmy mammoth! It's an exciting time to be alive! :D
I read once in a science magazine that they found more DNA in mummy bones than in mummy flesh. So always when I hear about scientist trying to clone mammoths they use mammoth skin to find intact DNA but I suggest they should try out bones, I guess.
We are the apex predator. No need to bring in other species. Put them on Iceland and charge 100 mil usd for each kill. Jack up the price if there are too many willing. I beliebe that even with that pricetag the population would be in check.
I'm not so sure about the mastodons or mammoths but I think bringing back predators might benefit many places. Take for example: the eastern cougar. Thought to have been extinct since the 1930's, the cougar wasn't declared extinct till 2011. There's been many sightings of it since but no hard physical proof that this gorgeous cat is still around. There's a pretty big lack of predators in the united states, unfortunately because of humans being afraid of- or hunting them. Because of this there's been an explosion in many herbivores animals. The eastern cougar could help control their numbers.
Western cougars and florida cougars still exist in the US, and western cougars have spread to the eastern US now as well. I've seen one myself in upstate NY.
Should we de-extinct mammoths....no. There are many more worthy species to de-extinct that would be a lot simpler to deal with and have real habitats that still exist. Moas. Thylacines. Passenger pigeons. Mammoths lived in the ice aged Asian Steppes, which no longer exist. It seems like nobody cares about the habitat and we just want to have a giant Jurassic Park as a big greedy tourist attraction, and ressurect the biggest thing we can think of as a glory to our own human scientific acheivements. Well that's just stupid. For the people saying we should dump them in Canada because it's "empty" - well, I'm a Canadian: and Canada isn't empty. Our arctic tundra is already teeming with musk ox, bears, wolves, birds, foxes, hares, burrowing animals, and millions upon millions of caribou. Throwing mammoths into the mix would be a detriment to our already threatened arctic wildlife. No thanks.
I live in central NY(upstate NY to those in the city), please don't de-extinct passenger pigeons. There is a reason the people here (and in the rest of their range) killed them all. They would ruin the farming here and destroy huge swaths of forest.
Two problems with that: One- Hunting alone was not enough to get rid of them in the first place, many farmers resorted to what was basically chemical warfare - lighting sulfur fires under their roosts. You might have better luck if their population never got too big in the first place and if there are no uncontrolled reserve populations, but here we run headlong into problem number two: Enormous unchecked populations would unavoidably collect in cities. Where I live (Utica NY) it's already starting to happen with deer. The individuals which are OK with living in cities end up more evolutionarily successful because hunting (for obvious reasons) isn't allowed there. Granted with deer it's happening slowly on account of deer generations taking a decent amount of time - but with Passenger Pigeons it would be much faster. Hell, normal pigeons are already adapted to cities.
We'd put them in places were mammoth steppe still exists like Wrangel Island and Certain areas of Alaska and Siberia(Best option being the "Pleistocene park" project)
Wow man! I thought you were for real and really appreciated your stuff. This one… come on, man. The evidence is literally all over the world. It’s not even a debate at this point. The fact that mainstream archeologists just flat out ignore anything and attack anything that goes against their college thesis amazes me. Common sense and endless evidence points to one of two possibilities, either humanity had some sort of advanced technology prior to the Younger Dryas, that we just haven’t imagined yet, or we have to turn our heads toward some kind of extraterrestrial involvement. Wow.
If you want to meet something like an alive mastodon (i.e. a dead mastodon) come visit Perry at the Wheaton College Science Center! It's like an hour from the field museum!
Put the Mammoths out west and up north into Canada in a a few National Parks. Sell Mammoth burgers as a source of funding and to help maintain the population? However, the more pressing question is, can't we use similar process to ensure the survival of endangered elephants and rhinos species? Have non-endanger animals carry similar endanger animals?
ArchOfWinter well only issue is you can't in-pregnate a dog with a rhino, the animals have to be very closely related for it work so you it would be harder then people might think
There is a huge already established park/reserve in Siberia set aside to bring back ice age mega fauna, they have a theory that large grazers will bring back grasslands
If we do bring them back from extinction I hope they can live somewhere with plenty of grass to graze on. It's been a rough 4,500-10,000 years for them being dead and all.
We need to focus on more important things like cures and vaccines, medical attention and conserving threatened and endangered species. Not only that, but there is a chance that the mammoth and mastodons are still alive somewhere in the vast wilderness of the world.
Getting into when sea level rose and submerged Santa Rosae gets hairy. Had sea levels already submerged the landmass 60 kya? Did Columbian Mammoths swim there or were they trapped by a sudden meltwater pulse?
I'm split on whether we should or not. While on one hand I think we should attempt to bring back SOMETHING just to see if the science behind everything can work. On the other hand, I dont think we should bring back something like the wooly mamoth for obvious reasons. the worlds' climate has changed too much to properly support them, and care for them. I feel like if we bring anything back, it should be a species that only just recently went extinct, so that we have a chance at re-acclimating it to its original habitat.
can we? Yes? Should we? Irrelevant question because someone will do it regardless of the answer. seriously, it's not like there's a big public discourse where the people get to vote on it. If you have the money and the resources to get it done you can do it. even if a particular country decides to outlaw the very idea of it, that won't stop it. Where would we put it? well, if it's the dwarf type we could put them in our backyards as pets. maybe a pygmy Mastodon would be good for keeping that honeysuckle cut down.
"Where should we put them?" Oh my brain, I'm gonna be that jerk... Where should we put them? Between two whole wheat buns. Though really, humans today have turned eating into such a huge industry that if we ate mammoths we would be far more likely to want to keep them alive for tasty reasons than for purely scientific reasons.
Mastadonts are from different family and lived way earlier to extract DNA... While Mammoths were very close to Indian Elephants and lived 10 000 years ago and has a tiny chance to be clowned
Came here for science and a 'Mastodon' reference... Was not disappointed
I think you would like mastodon.social! :) It's similar to Twitter, but better.
7catstied2gether Didn't expect it and was pleasantly surprised!
7catstied2gether same but it's appreciated right?
Mastodon put on a great show, saw them in memphis last summer
7catstied2gether I was very impressed as well. We need more references to metal in common videos.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes
2. My house
How about we first focus on keeping the elephants alive?
ikr
Why not multitask?
Madisyn Bowen multitusk
Well you rarely see elephants so I mean uhhhhhh... :/
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Science such as this would actually help us maintain the elephants.
"... why not, say... mastodons?" *Mastodon plays in the background*
Thanks for the laugh, that was awesome =)
Surely you meant *Mastodawesome*
Do you know what song it was exactly that was playing?
Didnt sound like a mastodon song to me, more along the lines of royalty free music in my opinion
Should we: yes!
Where would we put them: Everywhere!
mammoths in iceland would be kickass.
AlmostSwedish canada
Should we: YES!
Where would be put them: PLEISTOCENE PARK
*Frnkn shw let's make sure they don't break out though I mean it would make a good movie but still
Terrible analogy overall.
V
Canada is a good start I suppose
yeah and because of yellow stone an ice age could start again and maybe extinct half of the animals that we have on earth
Thinking the same thing lol
@@americantemplar6553 north America
I personally think that we should try to bring back anything that we (humans) have personally caused to go extinct.
that being said though, environments worldwide have changed drastically in the last few hundred years alone. climates are changing, invasive animals have spread out and there's a lot of extinctions going on as we speak. some species simply will not survive in what was once their home, and others will upset the already tenuous balance struck in some. we need to be REALLY careful with this and i'm sorry to say that having some romantic idea of 'restoring what we ruined' isn't going to help.
I find it interesting how this is, in some ways, an extension of the kind of 'rewilding' debates you get in Europe.
In the UK, for example, we got rid of all native predators capable of killing deer (bears, lynxs and finally wolves). Clearly, the ecological consequences of that are bound to be vast - there has been quite a lot of research in places like Yellowstone showing how the removal (and reintroduction) of large predators can have a cascade effect on the rest of the ecosystem. The problem is that in most parts of the UK there haven't been large predators for hundreds of years and in the intervening period almost every inch of the country has been managed or shaped in some way by human activity. So what exactly is 'natural'?
This is exacerbated by the deer population rising dramatically in the 20th century as a result of land use changes and the fact that, while in mainland Europe wolves and other carnivores are recolonising habitats on their own, that can't happen on an island.
The mammoth thing is a similar deal, just on a much longer time-frame.
We can't even keep the existing bloody elephant and rhino populations safe from poaching. How can we create, introduce, and protect test tube creations?
I agree, but we didn't wipe out the mammoths.
someone else indeed
I cannot believe this channel has less than a million subs. Superb videos. Well thought out and researched data, pleasant and well spoken host, entertaining to boot?
Keep it up everyone
Emily! You don't even know how much I love you for that Mastodon reference!
large tundra's in Siberia. thogeter with reindeers, bisons and horses
Mammoths are more native to America, so Canada would likely be where they would end up.
Mammoths lived throughout the northern hemisphere, but a problem would be the fact that the ecosystem has changed since then. The steppes mammoths once grazed on have been replaced by forests, so they'd starve to death.
It's more likely that de-extinct mammoths will be a zoo attraction forever.
RomrotMechanikos mammoths were first found in Siberia and mammoths were found near my town in the Netherlands
So change the ecosystem!
lasschesteven When the world was in an ice age. But the mammoths that existed in reletively recent history existed in America.
We need puppy mammoths. Needs to happen.
OJagg1 yes yes yes yes
Puppy sized elephants
OJagg1 yes
or elephant sized puppies
Puppy mammoths? That's like saying jumbo shrimp!
thumb up for Mastodon pun
Plot twist: the 10 different Mammuthus species' genetic information is more convoluted than previously thought, with some even suggesting that they were actually just one species adapted to live in various habitats www.eartharchives.org/articles/north-american-mammoths-likely-interbred-with-one-another/
Which leads us back to the same old question: WHAT IS A SPECIES?
Good question Franz, spoiler alert there is no one single agreed upon definition and lines are blurry and we don't really know what a species is because time is not linear:
th-cam.com/video/9fOfFlMe6ek/w-d-xo.html
Still one of my fave videos from you!
Franz Anthony This thread is wonderful.
a. awesome video b. i really enjoyed the sound design and graphic feel of this episode.
zentouro I
welcome to Pleistocene park!
*amazing John williams theme*
Araanor There's a collegehumor video of that already, go watch it if you haven't!
This comment is so severely underrated.
Good idea. M.
We could put the mammoths in my house. I have a yard.
eustacia03 Especially if they are puppy-sized?
eustacia03 You will need a very big pooper scooper. Or maybe not. Elephants eat other elephant dung to recycle gut bacteria. Mammoths probably would do the same.
Ret Samys yas
put them in Russia or Alaska
robert bailey Mammoths still need Vegetation, Cold places s a no go.
Yes, Mammoths should be brought back. it would be a logistic nightmare to feed and carefore. but the concept de-extinction would have a great posterchild (the Mammoth) to get massive legitimacy and financial support
Aj Franklin I don't want to deal with the food chain :/ feels like a hassle
There is a place called Pleistocene Park, owned and operated by the Zimovs, in Siberia.
We'll it's happening as we speak, hell the wooly mammoth 🦣 😎 is probably already roaming the earth 🌎
Recently saw the Bristle Mammoth in Ann Arbor. It's one thing to see pictures comparing them to humans in size, but to see their skulls is something different. They're HUGE! And their tusks are AMAZING. If anybody else is interested in these guys, go to Ann Arbor! The amount of deductions they've been able to get from one big skull is incredible.
We love how you cite your image sources right in the video and will try to do the same thing. Thanks for being a great model.
0:52 HAHAHA I think he's just inside of a super clean room( that I don't know why) opening a Nitrogen refrigerator that usually stores BAC's library of genomes. Today things are moving to a more giant refrigerator with liquid nitrogen, because it's way more energy efficient.
The detail, the precise info, the camera shots and the editing on this video is astounding. It's why I love this channel and wished it would be as big as SciShow or Veritasium, because you're definitely at their quality level.
Aah, also on the subject of De-Extinction. I think it will become quite a significant matter of reacquiring extinct species. The decline of all modern taxa due to human activity is no joke. Ecologists and geologists all agree today we live in the Antropocene, a era marked by major decline of several life forms, a new big extinction event that may be as big as the *Great Dying* (or P-Tr extinction event).
However we know nothing about the world itself, so in order to preserve this info for the future we must try to acquire as much data as possible now if we want to provide our future generations with a verisimilar version of the past, and not just bones and stuffed animals.
These days, it's standard practices to not only preserve the bones/skins of specimens coming through the Museum - we also take tissue samples of all of them to preserve that genetic information, too!
***** Indeed! And store those tissues in either something different than formaldehyde or at least conserve the genome inside of BAC's(for animals, I think plants you can actually conserve in something that doesn't even require this technique)
On top of how awesome you already are, you referenced Mastodon. Rock on!
My question would be, if we have the technology, why don't we bring back something like the black rhino, which was only wiped out a couple of years ago. There are other rhinos that could be used to help with the effort, and they've been in Africa recently enough, one need not wonder where to put them. Just a thought. Save things becoming extinct now, rather than things the planet wiped out long ago.
you are an excellent presenter. you don't rush. you are articulate. your videos are so well built. which i could elaborate on but won't right now. you're videos are great for the classroom
Mastodon!
Pterodactyl!
Triceratops!
Saber-toothed tiger!
Tyrannosaurus!
Tigers are endangered now. They are apex prexators today, and do not co-exist well with humans. God only knows what dangers sabre tooth cats would present.
Love this channel and can't get enough of it
what a funny twist to a factual documentation! I have to say that already seeing some of the things behind this already from other shows is very convincing that we can bring them back and I'd love to see them come back too. one thing that could effect it is where ever we put them -say in a cold environment, wouldn't they be facing up against or take over other herd grazers like bison and other fauna like that and cause a unbalance in the food chain? in the end this was really great to listen too and I learnt something new - mastodon puns, but with all jokes aside this was really interesting. =)
Nature enthusiast well in places like Russia or north candida the open places are full of caribou and they breed faster then elephants so I doubt they will have much issue with them
humans: *wipe out mastodon*
humans: *hunt mammoth to extinction*
humans: *recklessly heat up planet with global warming*
humans: "Well that took a lot of work *whew*. Okay. Now let's bring 'em back!"
I get so tired of answering the question of 'where to put them.' There is in FACT, a 'Pleistocene Park' in Siberia. It is the work of Sergei Zimov, and he is in the process of creating another just East of the Urals that will be more accessible for visitors. The whole POINT of returning mammoths to Siberia and the tundra is because they turn tundra and taiga forest into the 'mammoth steppe,' which is a FAR more productive environment for not just mammoth, but many other animals as well. The mammoth, as a 'keystone species' is what is required in order to restore the environment of the mammoth steppe, as Zimov has conclusively proven at Pleistocene Park with some 30 years worth of practical experiment. Look up 'Pleistocene Park,' and you will see for yourself 'where will we put them.'
Keep up the good work, always love your videos!
I can answer this one for you Emily, mastodons, unlike mammoths had some really messed up ideas on tax reform. While mammoths are well known for responsible spending policies, mastodons (as I'm sure you are aware) were all to pro "big government" and endorsed overspending and crippling taxes on businesses and the middle class.
Proud graduate of Cliff Claven University.
You wot mate?
And they had some pretty radical religious ideas as well.
As soon as I saw this video I opened it and liked it. Keep em coming! I want to see a video on Hercules beetles coming out soon
Great video Emily! Keep them coming. :)
Keep up the good work :)
This is one of my favorite episodes, Emily!
This video was so awesome, I had to subscribe immediately. I read something in National Geographic about mastodons and of course went straight to TH-cam. I love reading!!
What a fantastic host/presenter.
one of the coolest cutest 'nerds' on youtube, thanks for teaching me about mammoths
Quintessential info. Great stuff.
just came back from the royal museum in Victoria BC, they have a great exhibit on this subject,,, highly recommend it!
I don't know how much overlap there is between Mastodon fans and fans of the mastodon but you went there and I appreciate it
Never knew mammoths and mastodons were so different kinda thought, it was like a class/phylum sort of relationship However now I know they differ quite a bit different.
We would put them in probably zoos only, releasing something of that size in an environment where its role is fulfilled by another animal can create some serious competition, if we did we would probably do it in Siberia and Alaska
Going to have to name my Mastodon tribute band "Gomphothere".
As for where we would put them, I know a "Pleistocene Park" as been proposed in Siberia. Plus pretty much all the vegetation they ate is still around in North America. Horses lived in Ice Age North America but went extinct. When horses were (much) later reintroduced by Europeans, they did just fine.
That said, I imagine that ranchers who already complain about bison and wolves wouldn't care much for mammoths and saber-tooth cats. (Because if we're bringing back mammoths, I insist on bringing back sabertooths as well.)
I can imagine it right now... Many years after mammoths are cloned, they start getting poached... reducing their population by ALOT, but thanks to conservation they survive.
What about the "How"? While frozen mammoths had been found in the Arctic, scientists were not able to find a tissue sample suitable for cloning, as there was just too much damage to the cells.
Deexitnction involves genetic splicing, not cloning, but your point remains valud.
What would be some possible consequences of bringing a species like this back?
This is a big topic of debate in science with many different facets on both sides. Like, the amount of financial support being poured into 'de-extinction' programs is seen as misguided by some, in light of current high rates of extinction still occurring today. Some argue for that kind of support instead be used to stabilize declining environments that are still around and not try to bring something back that went extinct possibly because of environmental changes we don't yet understand. We don't always know what these animals ate - what if that plant is now extinct, too? And mammoths are huge animals that require a lot of food. Will they be competing against other grazers in whatever habitat we put them in? If a suitable habitat doesn't exist... is it okay to keep them in captivity? And if so... what, exactly, have we 'preserved' after all?
But at the same time, if we aren't looking into ways of preserving the unique genomes of these extinct organisms -- they very well could be gone forever, even if in the future we as a collective global society have a better grasp on human-created climate impact and habitat loss. There are an infinite number of questions surrounding this topic and I'd love to hear more thoughts.
The financial argument against de-extinction is fairly strong right now. These genetic experiments look more like hot-shot projects done for attention rather than good science. We can barely stabilize our existing elephant and rhino populations thanks to changing water and forest resources. The nature reserves that exist are scarcely allowing for genetic diversity in the primate and bird species we are trying to preserve. From whose environment are we going to chunk out a safe, poacher-free place to experiment on test-tube wildlife? If there is such money and resources what, other than hubris, justifies it going toward a genetic experiment rather than existing endangered wildlife?
Hypatia4242 While I wouldn't disagree with a word you have written, another answer to your rhetorical question (which I shall answer nevertheless) is sheer coolness. Something can be a foolish waste of money but very cool all the same.
I'd absolutely love to see a mammoth in the flesh.
+Joshua Rosen: I get it. I just had this debate about going to Mars. It is cool and, like de-extinction, it draws on our natural instincts to explore and experiment. I want to see a mammoth too (and Mars). Maybe mammoths on Mars?
It felt fast paced. Was it, though? That's what it felt like.
Was there a particular reason to make it so?
Dont get me wrong, top quality, awesome to watch, very educative, loved it...just needed to pause and rewind it... like ten times. So it made me wonder....
"Puppy-sized Mammoths" WOW! Who wouldn't want one? The ultimate designer pet maybe? :-)
cool video i just did my own custom of mastodon for my channel... i was inspired by the power ranger then growing up hahaha... but i had mammoth first just this year also... i just hope more people will be more aware about this epic creature they are awesome ... thanks for the infovideo its cool....
Great video by the way it is a miracle that they are going to clone the woolly Mammoth by 2027,I hope it happens with other animals but the question is when are they going to resurrect the Stellar sea cow,moa bird, elephant bird, smilodon and glyptodon it is only 2024 and not they have cloned these animals and all because of religion and ethics
Religion isn't þe issue.
I love it when scientists say "only 10,000 years ago". I know that in the history of that planet, that's suuuuuper short, but to a person, that's so hard to even imagine. Science is crazy guys.
And then there's astronomy, where people can say "only a few hundred million years" with a straight face
and then there are geologists who are like "we've got fossils that are 3.7 billion years old - nbd"
www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/the-worlds-oldest-fossils-are-37-billion-years-old/498056/
You're missing the point since those geologists are obviously not acting like it's a short time, quite the opposite. The keyword here was "only" :-)
Matthijs van Duin "It's young, about a hundred and thirty million years old."
Dr Meghan Gray, talking about M50
I was patiently awaiting the puppy-sized mammoth reference, and was certainly not disappointed.
I want a pygmy mammoth. If we de-extinct them, one can live in my yard. Lol.
Great video.
Just imagine how much food can a mammoth's corpse provide for animals like: The Siberian Tiger, Gray Wolf packs, Bears and all sorts of other smaller predators during the long cold winters in Siberia and Canada for example. Reintroducing the wooly mammoth to its original habitat may as well save other animals from future extinction.
Can I just say that the editing for The Brain Scoop has been freaking awesome these past few months? Let's give a round of applause to Brandon Brungard!
A UCSB alumn here and I can say that word on the street in the archaeology dept. is that yes, there are already people working on bringing back the pygmy mammoth! It's an exciting time to be alive! :D
There is no slider bar!??? How do I control the playback?
I read once in a science magazine that they found more DNA in mummy bones than in mummy flesh.
So always when I hear about scientist trying to clone mammoths they use mammoth skin to find intact DNA but I suggest they should try out bones, I guess.
What the world needs now, is love, sweet love
and some giant fucking sloths! Am I right, or what?
You right!
You'll need some sort of apex predator to keep that population in check; we'll need to bring back smilodon as well. Everyone loves cats, right? xD
We are the apex predator. No need to bring in other species. Put them on Iceland and charge 100 mil usd for each kill. Jack up the price if there are too many willing. I beliebe that even with that pricetag the population would be in check.
Did you know there are sightings of megatherium-looking animals by the natives in the amazonian rainforest?
Yes! Now if one of these sightings would result in a living specimen that scientists could study, we would be way ahead of the game.
Woolly mammoths went extinct about 4,000 years ago 🦣
Wow, I did not see the Mastodon (band) joke coming, props for that!
I love this channel.
Never thought I'd get a good laugh from the phrase, "Late Miocene Megafauna."
Well played.
We can't even keep the elephants alive...So we better do it before they go extinct too.
Just what I was thinking. Lets try to keep the alive, alive, before we try to resurrect the dead.
YES WE CAN BRING THEM BACK !! WE JUST NEED TO BE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT ECOSYSTEM FOR THEM ANS ENOUGH OF IT TO SUPPORT THEM
I'm not so sure about the mastodons or mammoths but I think bringing back predators might benefit many places. Take for example: the eastern cougar. Thought to have been extinct since the 1930's, the cougar wasn't declared extinct till 2011. There's been many sightings of it since but no hard physical proof that this gorgeous cat is still around. There's a pretty big lack of predators in the united states, unfortunately because of humans being afraid of- or hunting them. Because of this there's been an explosion in many herbivores animals. The eastern cougar could help control their numbers.
Western cougars and florida cougars still exist in the US, and western cougars have spread to the eastern US now as well. I've seen one myself in upstate NY.
As a metal fan who's been watching since the wolf dissection video. I am far too pleased by that mastodon reference ^__^
Should we de-extinct mammoths....no. There are many more worthy species to de-extinct that would be a lot simpler to deal with and have real habitats that still exist. Moas. Thylacines. Passenger pigeons. Mammoths lived in the ice aged Asian Steppes, which no longer exist. It seems like nobody cares about the habitat and we just want to have a giant Jurassic Park as a big greedy tourist attraction, and ressurect the biggest thing we can think of as a glory to our own human scientific acheivements. Well that's just stupid. For the people saying we should dump them in Canada because it's "empty" - well, I'm a Canadian: and Canada isn't empty. Our arctic tundra is already teeming with musk ox, bears, wolves, birds, foxes, hares, burrowing animals, and millions upon millions of caribou. Throwing mammoths into the mix would be a detriment to our already threatened arctic wildlife. No thanks.
I live in central NY(upstate NY to those in the city), please don't de-extinct passenger pigeons. There is a reason the people here (and in the rest of their range) killed them all. They would ruin the farming here and destroy huge swaths of forest.
scienceprimo Ok, but I think wiping out all 5 billion of them was a bit much. Managing a few thousand in migrating flocks isn't going to hurt anyone.
Sure, if you could manage them. That's a big "if". They were just too evolutionarily successful. You could keep them in captivity though.
scienceprimo Allow hunting once their population reaches sustainable levels. There, done. Not difficult whatsoever.
Two problems with that:
One- Hunting alone was not enough to get rid of them in the first place, many farmers resorted to what was basically chemical warfare - lighting sulfur fires under their roosts. You might have better luck if their population never got too big in the first place and if there are no uncontrolled reserve populations, but here we run headlong into problem number two:
Enormous unchecked populations would unavoidably collect in cities. Where I live (Utica NY) it's already starting to happen with deer. The individuals which are OK with living in cities end up more evolutionarily successful because hunting (for obvious reasons) isn't allowed there. Granted with deer it's happening slowly on account of deer generations taking a decent amount of time - but with Passenger Pigeons it would be much faster. Hell, normal pigeons are already adapted to cities.
oh hang on - that elephant brooch?! That's adorable!
TIL: Emily is almost puppy sized.
I always enjoy brain scoop videos so much!!
We'd put them in places were mammoth steppe still exists like Wrangel Island and Certain areas of Alaska and Siberia(Best option being the "Pleistocene park" project)
Can you do another dissection video?
The only thing I missed in this video was a map showing the historic range of the two genera. Is one available?
Let's remember we are happily watching Modern Elephants go extinct.
Yeah, let's bring back Wooly Mammoths when there is global warming. Great idea!
It was climate change that drive mega fauna into extinction, nearly drove mankind extinct.
Nice video
Wow man! I thought you were for real and really appreciated your stuff. This one… come on, man. The evidence is literally all over the world. It’s not even a debate at this point. The fact that mainstream archeologists just flat out ignore anything and attack anything that goes against their college thesis amazes me. Common sense and endless evidence points to one of two possibilities, either humanity had some sort of advanced technology prior to the Younger Dryas, that we just haven’t imagined yet, or we have to turn our heads toward some kind of extraterrestrial involvement. Wow.
If you want to meet something like an alive mastodon (i.e. a dead mastodon) come visit Perry at the Wheaton College Science Center! It's like an hour from the field museum!
At the point I think we have enough evidence to just admit the reason Mammoth are extinct is because they were insanely delicious.
Yummy!
Put the Mammoths out west and up north into Canada in a a few National Parks. Sell Mammoth burgers as a source of funding and to help maintain the population?
However, the more pressing question is, can't we use similar process to ensure the survival of endangered elephants and rhinos species? Have non-endanger animals carry similar endanger animals?
ArchOfWinter well only issue is you can't in-pregnate a dog with a rhino, the animals have to be very closely related for it work so you it would be harder then people might think
There is a huge already established park/reserve in Siberia set aside to bring back ice age mega fauna, they have a theory that large grazers will bring back grasslands
Hi brainscoop! I wonder, are you a biologist? Or is something else (like idk, genetic engineer) your area of expertise?
If we do bring them back from extinction I hope they can live somewhere with plenty of grass to graze on. It's been a rough 4,500-10,000 years for them being dead and all.
We need to focus on more important things like cures and vaccines, medical attention and conserving threatened and endangered species.
Not only that, but there is a chance that the mammoth and mastodons are still alive somewhere in the vast wilderness of the world.
wrangel island 👀
this was a fire video
Getting into when sea level rose and submerged Santa Rosae gets hairy. Had sea levels already submerged the landmass 60 kya? Did Columbian Mammoths swim there or were they trapped by a sudden meltwater pulse?
great vid
Same place we put bison. Silly question to end with since we all are aware of Pleistocene Park.
0:02 is that a gorgonopsid skull?
*subscribes*
0:57
*fucking oversubscribes*
1:03
*breaks the fucking subscribe button with the head*
Glad you mentioned the band Mastodon
I'm split on whether we should or not. While on one hand I think we should attempt to bring back SOMETHING just to see if the science behind everything can work. On the other hand, I dont think we should bring back something like the wooly mamoth for obvious reasons. the worlds' climate has changed too much to properly support them, and care for them.
I feel like if we bring anything back, it should be a species that only just recently went extinct, so that we have a chance at re-acclimating it to its original habitat.
can we? Yes? Should we? Irrelevant question because someone will do it regardless of the answer. seriously, it's not like there's a big public discourse where the people get to vote on it. If you have the money and the resources to get it done you can do it. even if a particular country decides to outlaw the very idea of it, that won't stop it. Where would we put it? well, if it's the dwarf type we could put them in our backyards as pets. maybe a pygmy Mastodon would be good for keeping that honeysuckle cut down.
Exactly, no matter illogical ethical excuse is out there, there's gonna be someone doing it none of the less.
Well, the mammoths are meant to be in Siberia so if Russia decides to outlaw de-extinction...
Pygmy mastadons could also be put in a petting zoo.
"Where should we put them?"
Oh my brain, I'm gonna be that jerk...
Where should we put them? Between two whole wheat buns.
Though really, humans today have turned eating into such a huge industry that if we ate mammoths we would be far more likely to want to keep them alive for tasty reasons than for purely scientific reasons.
Your photo at 1:11 is misleading. African Elephants are generally considered to be larger than mammoths were.
Mastadonts are from different family and lived way earlier to extract DNA... While Mammoths were very close to Indian Elephants and lived 10 000 years ago and has a tiny chance to be clowned
Can we? Probably. Should we? Probably not.