A Prehistoric Park in America or Europe?

[Techno-Druid]

So I'm into conservation, my entire life plan when I become older (currently I'm 14 years old) is to become a mammalogist and ecologist. I've been understanding many new concepts and ideas; Nonhuman rights for apes, Genetic engineering, etc, but this one subject never ceased to fascinate me, it's called Pleistocene Re-wilding, for people who don't know what the Pleistocene is, it was basically the period of ice ages and global warming periods in which almost all modern mammals evolved from (including humans).


Europe, specifically the British Isles


Japan as it looked in the Pleistocene


North America in the Pleistocene

The basic premise is the study or reintroducing close relatives or members of the same species that once roamed those areas. Even though I support it, I wouldn't support just reintroducing animals blindly into a civilized area, because that could be harmful for both the animals and civilians. I would thin the best step would be to do it on a large island or extremely large amount of isolated farmland. Also keep in mind that most of the same species that are around today were around when these animals were alive. The same species of grass that is grazed on by the mustang horses, was grazed on by their relatives, the Hagerman Horse. The same red deer alive in Britain were the same red deer that shared their land with rhinoceros and hippopotamus.



In many respects this has already been happening. An extinct animal called an aurochs was hunted to extinction, it was the same species as the domestic cattle we have today, but naturally wild. So a group of researchers are breeding primitive landrace breeds of cattle to live in the wilds of Europe. The mustang horses that were introduced by the Spanish technically serve the same ecological role as the five species of equids (horse family) that lived in North America. Two elk have already been reintroduced to Britain by a millionaire who plans to introduce more.


The TaurOs, a wild breed of cattle that is meant to resemble the extinct aurochs. It's currently living in the wilds of southern Europe.

[Crissi]

Conservation that seeks to keep everything the same is misguided. It should be about limiting our impact while allowing the environment to continue adapting.

Which is why pandas should just die out already. They are entirely too specialized and their breeding entirely too unreliable to continue on as long as they have on their own. Im pretty sure human intervening are whats keeping them at a somewhat decent level.

[Vizardlorde]

Possibly. I'm not sure what impact it would have. They're definitely extremely specialized though, which makes them vulnerable to changes in their habitat. I know Chinese breeding programs have had significantly more success in getting them to reproduce than anywhere else.

They feed them sharkfin soup, tiger penis , deer penis, and ginseng to get them in the mood .

[Crissi]

Possibly. I'm not sure what impact it would have. They're definitely extremely specialized though, which makes them vulnerable to changes in their habitat. I know Chinese breeding programs have had significantly more success in getting them to reproduce than anywhere else.

Sure, but I think my point was that pandas are one such species that can easily go extinct naturally and not from humans screwing things up, and that human intervention is essentially the primary reason their population is stable(sh). I say let them, cause pandas are overrated! They;re not even cute imo

but onto the OP: I cant really support it. If these animals went extinct due to natural reasons, they need to stay dead. Our environment has also adjusted to such losses and replaced it with others, so it would be essentially like introducing invasive species. That would be much more harmful than helpful. Re-Introduction of a species that dissappeared can work if the absence hasnt been for long (such as wolf re-introduction), but otherwise its usually a bad idea.

Basically, let Earth do what Earth wants. It typically knows better than humans do.

[Deleted]

You sure you're 14, OP? You don't make enough dick jokes for me to believe that's truly the case....

[Deleted]

Sure, but I think my point was that pandas are one such species that can easily go extinct naturally and not from humans screwing things up, and that human intervention is essentially the primary reason their population is stable(sh). I say let them, cause pandas are overrated! They;re not even cute imo

Well TBF Pandas suddenly decided to go herbivore and chose bamboo which in turn fucked their metabolism up thus their decline... They're a suicidal species

[Techno-Druid]

Which is why pandas should just die out already. They are entirely too specialized and their breeding entirely too unreliable to continue on as long as they have on their own. Im pretty sure human intervening are whats keeping them at a somewhat decent level.

Giant pandas don't really need us to survive, we actually have a high number of giant pandas in captivity. The issue is that the bamboo forests they live in are so depleted and destroyed by farmland, that the little land left isn't enough to fit all the captive giant pandas in. So most have to live in zoos, as far as we know they can breed no problem in the wild, but they are extremely elusive which makes it hard to observe their mating techniques.

[Crissi]

Giant pandas don't really need us to survive, we actually have a high number of giant pandas in captivity. The issue is that the bamboo forests they live in are so depleted and destroyed by farmland, that the little land left isn't enough to fit all the captive giant pandas in. So most have to live in zoos, as far as we know they can breed no problem in the wild, but they are extremely elusive which makes it hard to observe their mating techniques.

Pandas OCULD survive on their own, if the Earth itself never changed and other species didnt wander in and eat all their food. However, Earth doesnt work like that and pandas, because they are so specialized in diet and environment, will eventualy go extinct without intervention.

Im all for conserving species that are dwindeling because of human fuckups, but onserving a species thats in decline naturally is just stupid and very anti-earth.

[Tokru]

I would thin the best step would be to do it on a large island or extremely large amount of isolated farmland.

And where do you have that in Europe? In the US there might be some empty spaces but do they have the right climate/vegetation? I somehow doubt that.

[Techno-Druid]

Sure, but I think my point was that pandas are one such species that can easily go extinct naturally and not from humans screwing things up, and that human intervention is essentially the primary reason their population is stable(sh). I say let them, cause pandas are overrated! They;re not even cute imo

but onto the OP: I cant really support it. If these animals went extinct due to natural reasons, they need to stay dead. Our environment has also adjusted to such losses and replaced it with others, so it would be essentially like introducing invasive species. That would be much more harmful than helpful. Re-Introduction of a species that dissappeared can work if the absence hasnt been for long (such as wolf re-introduction), but otherwise its usually a bad idea.

Basically, let Earth do what Earth wants. It typically knows better than humans do.

How do you know that the environment had changed? When the mustang horses were reintroduced, they seemed to be good at being an ecological surrogacy for the horses that had been previously extinct for at least 10,000 years.

[Kalis]

You can have the Isle of Wight. It's currently inhabited by people from the Stone Age, so they'd fit right in.

Or the Isle of Sheppey, a few lions and rhinos would improve that place immeasurably.

[Techno-Druid]

And where do you have that in Europe? In the US there might be some empty spaces but do they have the right climate/vegetation? I somehow doubt that.

Yes, the right climate and the right vegetation, the same tress mammoths feed off of are the same that the surviving black bears bed down on. Mammals are also extremely adaptable, in Russia, some zoos are known to keep their lions out all year and they seem to be fine. Asian elephants are a species that is closely related to the mammoth and can survive in night climates that can turn to freezing, we also do have warmer states like Florida and California.

[Crissi]

How do you know that the environment had changed? When the mustang horses were reintroduced, they seemed to be good at being an ecological surrogacy for the horses that had been previously extinct for at least 10,000 years.

Continents are constantly moving, weather and climate changes all the time (even more so with human input), invasive species can wipe out a lot of native plant species, and lots of other stuff. Its the height of human arrogance to try and replace what was naturally lost just because we can. We brought african bees over in the 50's, and it only took them 60 years to get into the U.S and become a danger. Asian carp took over rivers and are now leaping into boats. Pythons are now the bane of Florida wildlife. Trying to reintroduce whats been gone for 10,000 years can result in the same things.

[Techno-Druid]

Pandas OCULD survive on their own, if the Earth itself never changed and other species didnt wander in and eat all their food. However, Earth doesnt work like that and pandas, because they are so specialized in diet and environment, will eventualy go extinct without intervention.

Im all for conserving species that are dwindeling because of human fuckups, but onserving a species thats in decline naturally is just stupid and very anti-earth.

Giant pandas were never on the decline before humans started farming in their forests. They went and are going extinct because of habitat destruction, the giant panda has to constantly move around to find bamboo, humans are cutting down bamboo and clearing it for land. Therefore the bears can't find enough food.

[Independent voter]

Hunters would pay a lot to shoot a mammoth.

What? It could fund the park.

[Deleted]

I hope you succeed in your endavours and I wish you the best of luck.

[Al Gorefiend]

A good conservationist would tell you reintroduction of an extinct species *could* (keyword: could) be catastrophic to the environment. The plants and animals in the ecosystem they previously thrived in adapted to life without them. Humans think we should resurrect extinct species that we killed off because it's the right thing to do. Reality is, nature gives no shits

- - - Updated - - -

Hunters would pay a lot to shoot a mammoth.

What? It could fund the park.

I'd pay even more to watch a mammoth gore a cocky Hunter.

[Bolson13]

Panda's also draw enough people to be economically viable haha. You can make a profit by displaying panda's. That alone makes them more relevant than most animals in the modern world

[Deleted]

Continents are constantly moving, weather and climate changes all the time (even more so with human input), invasive species can wipe out a lot of native plant species, and lots of other stuff. Its the height of human arrogance to try and replace what was naturally lost just because we can. We brought african bees over in the 50's, and it only took them 60 years to get into the U.S and become a danger. Asian carp took over rivers and are now leaping into boats. Pythons are now the bane of Florida wildlife. Trying to reintroduce whats been gone for 10,000 years can result in the same things.

I don't think Pythons where ever part of florida wildlife, you're talking about invasive species, not the re-introduction of species (which has been proven to be a good thing)

[Dendrek]

Humans cannot successfully micromanage nature. When they try, they fuck up the natural ecosystem and destabilize populations.

I particularly like this video