What's your stance on bringing back extinct species?

[Anomalocaris]

A proof of concept.  It's not beyond our ability to do this sort of thing.  There are probably a ton of other species that would be a better fit for us, but if we're talking mammoths then it would be more for those ecosystems that miss them than for us.  I think we'd have to qualify the idea that the gardens of those later cultures were stable.  They were as stable as any other garden - in that they persist as long as the gardener keeps at it.  They're not doing great at present.  

I'll move along from mammoths (under protest, lol!)....because I think that the same questions arise when we talk about the introduction or reintroduction of beavers.  They're also habitat creators.  They have profound effects on the ecology of wherever they're at.  Beneficial for the environment, but..sometimes, not for us.  We did a number on them to, and like other keystones and habitat creators we find that it's pretty difficult to recreate or preserve or establish natural habitat without them.  We could say that they've had their shot.  That we should try to preserve what's left rather than what nature has selected for extinction - and even knowing that they would be beneficial to that goal, elect not to restore those populations and environments.  Maybe find some other species that fits the task.  Or, ofc, we could do it ourselves, like the gardeners..at least until we're gone or lose interest.


Ultimately, I think that any genuine plan to repair any of the damage we've done for the sake of repair, or even for the sake of saving ourselves..is going to end up meaning that we have to make alot of tough decisions.  Do things that will be difficult to sell.  Like relocating people or entire communities because of flood risks, for example.

The stability of the artificial ecosystem the Indians created is greater than might be imagined.

The composition of the forest in much of the Amazon remains the artifact of Indian land management even though the active management likely stopped between 1500-1600 due to massive population collapse in the Amazon rain forest due to the extraordinary susceptibility of native Americans to Euroasian epidemic diseases brought by the Spanish.     The middle of North America remains largely devoid of forest land even though Indian management likely stopped at near the same time, or perhaps a little later.     The composition and appearance of the vast stretches pf forest in the American Northeast also took a long time to lose their obvious artificial character.     Down through the early 1800s European observers, oblivious to the artificial character of the forest on the New England and mid-Atlantic states, remarked on how strange and unique and park like great stretches of supposedly primeval forests there were, with very little undergrown, and open grassy land in between trees that lets one ride a horse comfortably through tractless forests.

But the purpose of artificial ecology is not to ensure it will persist without human intervention.  The purpose is to manage the ecology for the benefit of human society.     We have no obligation to try to minimize our impact on the long term ecological development of this world after ourselves.   We do own it to ourselves, however, to ensure we don’t overindulge in things which have predictably bad consequence upon ourselves, and that we use ability t0 study and analyze and learn to enhance the long term value of the ecology around us for ourselves.