Could cloning help save biodiversity?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 06. 2024
- In the face of widespread biodiversity loss, some scientists are creating clones to increase species' numbers and genetic diversity. How exactly does that work?
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
WITH THANKS TO:
Dr Bill Holt (retired), Zoological Society of London
Dr Pierre Comizzoli, Smithsonian's National Zoo
Dr Victoria Herridge, Natural History Museum, London
READ MORE:
Biodiversity loss as a concern: www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...
Disproportionate biodiversity loss: www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/...
Species extinction: livingplanet.panda.org/en-us/
Actions you can take to slow extinction: www.endangered.org/10-easy-th...
#PlanetA #Biodiversity #Extinction
Author: Aditi Rajagopal
Video Editor: Henning Goll
Supervising Editor: Kiyo Dörrer
ngl, when i came across this channel for the first time, i immediately press the subscribe button.
I believe in the future this will be an invaluable tool alongside regular preservation to preserve Biodiversity.
Any updates on Kurt ? Is he still in that tiny fenced area ?
To preserve what is left of natural habitat, we need to prevent any further increase in population. Yes, the Amazon rain forest is being cut down to raise cattle, but it is also being cut down to grow soybeans. More people, more farm acreage, the less wild habitat. Indeed, the more people, the more urban growth and suburban sprawl, to the loss of habitat for wild animals. If you care about extinction (and especially if you live in an affluent country), don't give birth, don't contribute to the increase in population.
Yes, that should be one of the main slogan with climate change. Our ever increasing population is the main cause, yet we focus on making too much humans somehow to live sustainably, which I dont know that we can, becouse as you pointed out every human needs resources. Food, clothing, house. This is increasing the demand on earth and taking more space from wild nature.
@@michasosnowski5918 I have made this comment many, many times, but I believe that yours is my first confirming reply. Thank you.
When my father was born in 1899, the population was 2 billion. The oceans were still filled with fish. The Colorado River still flowed into the Sea of Cortez. Wildlife still thrived in intact habitat all over the planet. With our current technology, if we were to return to a population of 2 billion, the human race would be living in paradise. There would be no more talk about colonizing Mars.
The fewer people, the less impact on the environment. But people act as if renewables and buying an EV will solve the problem. Wind farms are built in rivers of wind, rivers of wind that serve as highways for migrating birds. Wind turbines slaughter migrating birds. Ecological balance needs those slaughtered birds. I believe that people who think that we can go on having babies as long as we use renewables, etc....I believe that attitude arises because they live in cities. I live way, way out in the country, moved here in 2000. At that time, there was a huge population of eagles and hawks. Then they built the wind farms. The raptors were exterminated. In 2000, there was a thriving population of wildlife in the oak woods and sage-land scrub. As people moved in (people who acted as if they didn't give a damn about the wildlife), the wildlife has gradually disappeared. One can only guess the impact of the loss of the raptors and the wildlife on the ecological balance. City people never observe the loss of wildlife due to invasion in wildlife habitat.
Vegans continue to have babies. With each additional vegan, more acreage must go under the plow to produce soybeans. Those acres of soybeans are planted in monoculture. Habitat for wild bees is wiped out. Without wild bees, the soybeans do not get pollinated. The reduced production per acre compels more acreage to be put under plow. And so on, and so on.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And every additional human being eats lunch.
@@zeitgeist5134Couldn't agree more.
@@breadmonster5453 Ah, another confirming reply. Thank you.
I was born in 1954. Over the decades, I have watched vast acreage (much of it prime farm acreage with deep, fertile soil) swamped by housing developments, commercial sprawl, pavement. I have also watched as vast acreage of natural landscape was invaded by houses, eliminating vital habitat. In my county, vast acreage of sagebrush scrubland habitat has been bulldozed away for solar farms. The urbanites in the state government assumed that the scrubland had no value, was disposable. Alas. (Renewables, intended to solve the CO2 problem, just create new problems that do grievous harm in new ways. Instead, we need to reduce the consumption of electricity, reduce the numbers of people who would consume electricity.)
The more people, the more the planet's ecological systems have been eroded. We need those systems intact...if only to ensure our own survival. I myself grieve for each species that goes extinct. It's like a death in the family. I suppose one could accuse me of being a sentimentalist in that regard.
@@zeitgeist5134 Yeah... more people should know about this, not just global warming and whatever the media is pushing. A simple solution to most problems we caused.
so, when do we finally create a database of all these animals and their genes?
When it’s profitable for ppl who have the actual access to resources to make it happen
Mind blown🤯
1.20 ❤😍🐎 kurt is a delight to watch
Cool dat stuff. But what can the single person do to conserve species?
Hey Skyporter88! Thanks for your comment and interest! I was the reporter on this :) There's a list of actions people can take in the "Read More" section - but most importantly, it comes down to supporting nature and biodiversity around you, in whatever way you can. Learn about endangered species around you, grow native plants that birds/bees can feed on, eat organic food (avoiding fertilisers) if you can afford it, and actively support conservation groups :) Of course, personally, I would also say support leaders who have slowing climate change on their agenda!
Consume less is probably the 1 biggest thing you can start by doing, educate people around you, plant trees, spend time in nature to understand it and don't try change the wilderness, if you have kids teach them to respect and love nature, recycle and reuse and much as possible.
By consuming less you automatically reduce, you reduce waste, CO2, encroachment for farms and mining activity, reduce something as overlooked as transport of goods so for example less mileage on a transport truck means less changing of their tires so less tire pollution and less energy making the tire and less space needed to store new and used tires and less of everything that goes with it.
Live for yourself and let yourself live for nature. I don't care if people think I wear old clothes or use an empty margarine container to eat my food out of, my great grandchildren and their great grandchildren will all be dead and that piece of plastic will still be around so why create more and more?
Oh wow! 👍
lets say I have samples of tigers I can use for future cloning attempts but whatever species I planned for invitro fertilization doesnt exist in the future? kinda kills the point of cloning extinct animals.
it would be much easier to stop human sprawling and restoring habitats for endangered species than hoping that future cloning attempts are possible.
You do realise that we can do both.
Also use a proxy specie to carry the pregnancy such as a lionness for exemple.
Robots can be tought to do this work. Ai driven world simulator.
I read from Wikipedia regarding pleistocene rewilding on how it's a waste of time and that efforts should be more focused on cloning the extinct animals instead of substituting them with their currently endangered relatives, yet several articles mentioned how cloning is a waste of time and efforts should be focused on saving currently endangered animals.
What if both are good and neither is a waste of Time
Pleistocene parl is a success on his objective despite some dumb decision and very slow reintroduction rate.
You do realise that if we want to bring back extinct species it's not just to let the one endangered die.
no bu perfect tuning, examples successful examples biodiversity too, expansion experiments
In my opinion I think cloning is a good thing as we are already playing god so we are interfering with our interference
Bob Smith is the most generic name I've ever heard
Since its our fault that these species are dying out we should take care that its not actually happening. And if cloning is the way to get to that we should use that method too
Can we clone human?
Not legally! There have been some controversial experiments, that show it may be possible, in theory, but it would be an extremely dangerous route to go down!
Not legally, though I think we should clone Neanderthals and Denisovans.
Why should we.
That's unethical and useless
This is what I dont get. If the ‘balance’ is upset and species are ‘invading’ isint that life creating a new ‘balance’ a new ecosystem from which the invasive successful species can then diversify.
Invasive means that something reproduces so much that it damages the diversity of an ecosystem, the invasive species dominate the ecosystem and it means less food for the invasive species so that species start to die off, not because it didn't pass the nature's test of "survival of the fittest", but it passed it so well that it dies off because it doomed it's own ecosystem due to overpopulation and lack of resources (food/diversity). So it's a lose-lose situation that has a small chance of maybe creating a new balance if somehow, someway, some animal and some plants manage to survive the invasive species and either manage to live with the invasive species or kill it, thus balancing the ecosystem once again, which is highly unlikely.
The entire ecosystem needs to evolve with everything that is a part of it. And invasive species don't know/care about that, so they don't let their prey strength up because they are too hungry and too strong to let their food live a little and adapt, they kill even the best of the best prey and end the prey's/food's bloodline and it's evolution with it.
Evolution works by killing the weaker and letting the stronger/fitter live and as long as every species doesn't start to become too strong then there is diversity and there is life. Life is a circle of living and killing, then dying and giving life to something else, at least in the physical realm.
So whenever there is something big happening anywhere in life it either means great change for a better life (like a level up) or great death. A similar situation is with humanity right now (and we are risking the life of the entire planet with us) and there are conspiracy theories that similar civilizations existed that went on a path that our civilization is on (suicide).
@@breadmonster5453 yeah but I mean, wont life adapt to this new invasive species?
@@Five_y_kay It may, but it could make a few species extinct, leading to the extinction of species that used to feed on those extinct species and so on, leading to new opportunities for, lets say, some new plants populating which almost nothing in that ecosystem feeds on anymore, since the balance was disrupted. Life can adapt but it means the death of many species. If a species is really invasive it means it spreads to many many more ecosystems as long as they can survive somehow. Look, when you talk about life adapting to something that is really good at living and populating and has suddenly started to do both of those things, then it's really a gamble what will happen. For us it means we populated everything and mapped the entire planet just to realize that we don't have enough space and resources to maintain balance. And what are we going to do: force life to adapt to us and not do anything about it, help life live with us (make us live on life support of the trees), find more space on other planets or to just do the easiest and simplest thing and dont populate no more and dont gamble with the balance of life? Nothing has yet evolved to balance us out, to eat us, the same is with invasive species, it's easier to just make their numbers normal than to try to fix every single problem that the species causes, because when humans try fixing something they realize that they just convert one problem into another. It's best if we or an invasive species live in small numbers along with nature and don't interfere too much. When something overpopulates things become complicated so there's no simple answer to your question. But life is random meaning anything can happen if you give it time, but for life to even exist and for it to exist so long is really rare, there must have been a lot of balance for life to work. Invasiveness is bad because i don't know of a single species that lives entirely depending on itself, i think all species depend on some other external factors that they can hardly control. Invasiveness is a form of life converting diversity into one single life that actually depends on diversity, it doesn't work, it means death. If some species starts to eat the invasive one, that new species will become invasive as long as they have food, who knows what they will start to attack and eat when the main source becomes scarce.
😄 😄 😄 😄 😄 That's my name!
how bout the species that prey on human
That doesn't exist.
There's no such thing as a specie that regulary prey on humans.
Also dog, cow and your family are thousands time more dangerous to your life than any bear or tiger.
And just because a specie is dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't save them.
Because
1it our fault if they are endangered
2 they are very important to the ecosystem
3 it's our responsability
Why don’t we put all the effort used in Assisting human reproduction into bringing back endangered speices plenty of kids already here who need adopting idk why we need to add more people to a dying world,why not help bring back species that will help the climate problem instead of adding the cause
Ngl, this was creepy to watch
10:24 girl you look good in mustache. please don't shave next time.
Equating cloning (copying an animal) with genesplicing (GMO) making a new variant or even species of plant is at least bad journalism.
i don't like the indian accent.
If you're not able to understand you can turn on captions.
Thank God for closed captioning.