…and this is a 
BigThink has been having a Month of Dangerous Ideas, in which each day they publish a pro and con for a provocative idea, like "Tax Fat People" or "Mandatory Bible Study" (promoted to make people more moral, believe it or not), from which you'd get the impression it was mainly a month of stupid ideas. There were a few interesting ones in the mix, though.
One that comes up now and then again is the idea of Pleistocene Rewilding, that we should remove people from a wide strip of the center of the country, from North Dakota down to Texas in the more elaborate versions of the plan, and actively work to repopulate it with megafauna resembling the pre-human distribution — bring over elephants and lions from Africa, and in more ambitious extremes, genetically re-engineer extinct species, reconstructing mammoths from elephant stock, for instance. I admit, it sounds very cool — I wouldn't mind seeing great herds of bison and mammoth strolling near Morris, now and then, but ultimately it sounds like another stupid idea.
It falls apart for me on a couple of real problems. We can't reconstruct species yet, and rebuilding a whole ecological network? Yeah, right. There's always this focus on the big fragile animals, but if you want to rebuild the Pleistocene midwest, maybe the most important first step would be reconstructing the distribution of prairie grasses, which isn't easy. We've got these things called "parks" which often have goals like preserving the flora and fauna of a region, and they struggle to do even that — we have regional parks here that take some pride in preserving patches of pre-farming prairie, and even that takes hard work and constant maintenance. And, of course, what Pleistocene Rewilding proposes is bringing in large stocks of what are basically alien species and turning them loose. That always works out well. Ask the Australians.
I have a better idea. Why not just set aside large continuous swathes of land in various biomes and declare them to be real wildernesses — we have national parks and wilderness areas now, we could just start right there and enforce stricter policies of non-exploitation for a few centuries — by not permitting grazing, mineral exploration, logging, and RVs to rip through, but instead taking seriously the idea of creating fallow land where nature works without human guidance. We do not, however, have even the political will to do that much in this country, so rewilding is even more of a fantasy.
Although I do confess that the dream of depopulating Texas does provide some political incentive. Until you realize the Texans would just be spread around more.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
September 1, 2010 8:44 AM
Depopulate Texas? Fine with me as long as you send me somewhere that isn't so goddamned hot all the time*. And also that has killa barbecue. Because I have come to dig that.
*I think Vermont is nice. And Logan, Utah. And Portland, Oregon. Really, any part of the pacific NW would do.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 1, 2010 8:46 AM
Since most of the Dakotans and Nebraskans seem to be living next to Minnesota and Iowa anyway, why not just abandon huge swaths of the Dakotas and expand Minnesota and Iowa west by 40 miles or so.
Adding Lincoln and Omaha to Iowa can only do good things for that state and letting Fargo become part of Minnesota would make the Coen Brothers happy.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 8:52 AM
I always have a certain amusement when I look at "big animal" stuff like this project. Large animals are, relative to biomass, pretty much a small niche. And relative to speciation, completely insignificant.
I remember reading about a biologist who took two 1cc samples of soil in Norway. At the time there were about 4,000 cataloged species of bacteria.
In each of those 1cc scoops, he found over 4,000 new species. That were not related to the 4,000 species he found in the other scoop. In two cubic centimeters of soil, he had tripled the number of bacteria species.
If I remember right, there are only 4,000 or so species of mammals. Of which 1,000 or so are bats...
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 1, 2010 8:53 AM
Pffft!
I've been spreading Texas everywhere.
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
September 1, 2010 8:56 AM
Don't try and bring reality into this conversation PZ, I want my mammoth! Bonus points if I can ride him.
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
September 1, 2010 8:57 AM
Yes, cane toads worked so well for us.
http://www.canetoads.com.au/
Yes, "hand busting" really is what you think it is.
Posted by: Stanton
|
September 1, 2010 8:57 AM
Moses: there are 5,400 species of mammals, 2,277 species of which are rodents, and 1,100 species of which are bats.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 1, 2010 9:04 AM
What bugs me about all of these so called "dangerous ideas" is that they are ideas that are just bad. It's not that these are social or political taboos that we ought to consider broaching, they're downright stupid, and we have the knowledge, experience, and logic to recognize the massive flaws in them (such as the great success we've had with introduced species ). I suppose the Big Think wanted to spark discussion and putting these ideas out there certainly gets people thinking about just how bad they are, but wouldn't it be more productive to put some "dangerous" but potentially good ideas out there? Like PZ's plan for a more realistic wilderness area instead of experimenting with introduced species? Or atheism. I hear that's a dangerous idea that very few people whole heartedly support, but apparently there's a very good case to be made for it...
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
September 1, 2010 9:05 AM
Right, so, while we're thinking 'big projects', why don't we simply DECLARE it a wildlife refuge and quickly build a big wall around it?
Posted by: bcoppola
|
September 1, 2010 9:05 AM
Or to put it another way, "diluted"...we'd all become Texans by homeopathy!
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 9:06 AM
How about making military service mandatory for 18-22 yr olds, in exchange for college tuition? How about banning cellphones, Internet and TV for anybody under the age of 18? Also, let's make it a law that movie theaters cannot stop you from bringing in your own snacks.
And can we please start enforcing fraud laws a little more stringently, to cover things like psychics and homeopaths, not to mention any variation of 'Lose weight fast and easy'?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 9:07 AM
charismatic megafauna
it's what's for dinner
latest on cane toads
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 9:10 AM
Stanton: So what you're saying is, rodents, humans and bats collectively make up over half of all mammal species?
WE RULE!!
Posted by: irenedelse
|
September 1, 2010 9:11 AM
"Dangerous Ideas": revamping insanity is so media-friendly, y'know...
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 1, 2010 9:14 AM
And the point of turning a massive swath of the USA (or Siberia or Bolivia or any other plains area where this sort of thing could be done)into a massive, unusable, *unobservable* (if no one is allowed in) wildland is?
Unless no one is allowed to except a few handpicked scientists? That's why we're called elitists.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw9DgTr49OeKjwUwexJoza9ItQwkIt1jo
|
September 1, 2010 9:20 AM
Is criticism of the focus on "charismatic megafauna" and suggestion of focus on the prairie grass not completely missing the point of the suggestion ie that the megafauna are the reason the vegetation and the rest of the ecosystem stay as is. I belive Vera and Zimmov have both done some pretty convincing work on this have they not?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
September 1, 2010 9:27 AM
There's always this focus on the big fragile animals, but if you want to rebuild the Pleistocene midwest, maybe the most important first step would be reconstructing the distribution of prairie grasses, which isn't easy.
It would be even more difficult with the genetically engineered canola we've got taking over.
Posted by: AdamK
|
September 1, 2010 9:27 AM
I don't like the idea of spreading Texas around. So let's build a border fence around it, and forbid post-Stone Age technology. Then there'd be a bunch of primitive hominids to hunt the megafauna. Just tell them their stone tools are called "guns," and the Texans wouldn't even notice.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 9:31 AM
straw man. People are 'allowed in' to all designated wilderness. They just can;t generally bring their Hummers and Budweisers.
This is an excellent point.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 1, 2010 9:32 AM
Part of the problems with this notion of Pleistocene Rewilding, as I see it, is that it pretends humans aren't part of nature. I find it perfectly reasonable to look at modern man's ability to manipulate, intentionally and unintentionally, his environment, and to attempt to mitigate the impacts of our actions. But to look at people armed with stone tools and argue that we should attempt to undo the damage they did is akin to arguing that we should stop elephants from damage trees, or prevent lions from eating antelope.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 1, 2010 9:35 AM
Spreading the original prairie ecology would be nice.
But if you want mastodons, probably the fastest way to do that would be to bring in elephants in the south, where there's enough vegetation for them, and let them evolve into cold-tolerant varieties.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 1, 2010 9:36 AM
Running 4-wheeled motor toys on beaches destroys the nests of birds that nest on the beach.
Cutting logging roads exposes birds that depend on slipping away through the forest to escape raptors.
Everything we do has an effect.
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
September 1, 2010 9:39 AM
oops...I think I just got some Texas on Finland. Sorry. :)
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 1, 2010 9:39 AM
I blame blockbuster Hollywood popcorn films, 'n their closely-related black sheep sibling, bad B-movies. As in: y'know that part where someone sez 'It's just crazy enough to work!'?
Usually, it's more like 'It's stupid enough you'd only try it if you'd already read the script so you already know it's gonna work--in complete violation of all laws of physics and probability--anyway.'
But watch enough of that stuff, and people get this weird impression that to get out of a nearly impossible situation, the appropriate response is to do something improbably stupid, and with nice cinematic possibilities. Also with explosions, if it can be arranged.
(/Me, blaming the media again. I mean, why should the right have all the fun?)
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
September 1, 2010 9:41 AM
Best to just keep us all in one place. You never know, we might move in and want to *gasp* intermarry with the locals. *swoon*
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 1, 2010 9:41 AM
@19,
It's not a straw man if I am proposing an subjunctive or conditional statement, not arguing against something that PZ didn't write or intend. I was essentially asking the question: is no one to be allowed in?
And, by the way, obfuscation by litany of logical fallacies doesn't prove any points, or even probe any questions. It is a way of destroying debate, not winning it.
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
September 1, 2010 9:43 AM
Do relax, te24hours.
You simply have a rule that you take nothing biological in - works in NZ - and without permission you take nothing out. Oh, and you go on foot, of course.
No probs, dear.
To be serious for a minute we humans are not as clever we think at deciding which plants or animals are most use and best fitted to an ecosystem. We are also given to depending on systems which favour a monoculture. I offer as evidence Oklahoma etc in the 1930s, the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s and any number of other options where a monoculture produced megabucks for a few as long as it lasted but ended in collapse and starvation.
A couple of human generations of leaving the Dakotas alone would let us discover what actually "wants" to grow there and can survive all climate conditions, not just the ideal one upon which someone's business plan is based, someone who is making enough dosh out of this to get away at the first sign of another dustbowl.
Or look at the floods in Pakistan. Once they get dry land back again, how many of the indigenous food plants which evolved in the Indus valley over millennia do they still have to hand or even know about?
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
September 1, 2010 9:44 AM
“Before the Indians” by Björn Kurtén: A who-was-who of mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, glyptodons, extinct horses, llamas, camels, brush oxen, sabre-tooth and scimitar-tooth cats, condors, and teratorns (alas, the illustrations may be a bit bland, for those spoiled by brilliant computer animations of extinct animals). http://www.amazon.com/Before-Indians-Bj%C3%83%C2%B6rn-Kurt%C3%83%C2%A9n/dp/0231065833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283347772&sr=1-1
--- ---
-Shouldn't someone ask the Lakotans? I predict there will be some schadenfreude at seeing palefaces forced from the stolen lands...
--- ---
"the megafauna are the reason the vegetation and the rest of the ecosystem stay as is" -True, both for North America and Eurasia
--- ---
"remove people from a wide strip"
They will leave of their own, and in a hurry, once I have perfected my new "Twelwe Monkeys" virus, essentially adapting Ebola to using midwestern rodents as permanent hosts. Did I mention the new version will be airborne?
Posted by: windy
|
September 1, 2010 9:46 AM
Unless they are planning to spray the wilderness with Roundup, the transgenic canola isn't going to have any more of an edge than regular canola.
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 1, 2010 9:55 AM
OK, this is completely off-topic, but why the hell are there so many bat species?
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 1, 2010 9:57 AM
If you search for 'intellectual discussion' on the Internet, half of the crap that pops up is dumb.
Posted by: geds81
|
September 1, 2010 10:02 AM
Y'know, as a Chicagoan recently exiled to Dallas, I'm not at all a fan of your plans to wall the state off. At least let me get the hell out of here first...
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
September 1, 2010 10:04 AM
"Although I do confess that the dream of depopulating Texas does provide some political incentive. Until you realize the Texans would just be spread around more."
That's not how I saw the plan working.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
September 1, 2010 10:05 AM
@Monado
Theoretically you could do that with elephants but IFF you had a very large population (and the food to support them) AND they had the necessary variation to enable them to adapt to cold. Finally even if you had all that there is no guarantee that running the tape over again would result in a mammoth.
@Tulse
There are lots of bat species because they fly, which basically enables them to reach oceanic islands (often via storm events) and to cross mountain ranges during extreme high pressure events (enough oxygen to sustain flight*) which preclude their flying back and swapping genes with their original population. Thus reproductively isolated they speciate both by random drift and in adapting to new conditions and constraints.
Bats are the only native terrestrial mammals in New Zealand for eg, there are iirc two species and they are related to species in Australia as are a large proportion of the bird population. White herons established a breeding population in the West Coast of the South Island in recorded history after a storm event so even without being able to genetically compare across the Tasman sea we know it is possible.
*Birds who migrate across the Himalayas wait for highs before trying to cross, higher pressure overall also increases the partial pressure of O2, which at altitude really matters. Extreme low pressure systems have killed lots of climbers on Everest trying to do it without O2.
Posted by: MoeLarryAndJesus
|
September 1, 2010 10:08 AM
Can't we just take Rick Perry at his word and encourage Texas to secede?
There's no question that America would be vastly improved by the subtraction. Especially if they would take Oklahoma with them.
Posted by: glowball
|
September 1, 2010 10:10 AM
If you're planning to wall off Texas, you might want to extract Austin first. Lots of software dev there. Just sayin.
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 1, 2010 10:12 AM
Thanks for the info on bats, Peter -- that was very helpful.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 1, 2010 10:24 AM
To let life have its way, because we are not the only species on the fucking planet.
Posted by: Savior Breath
|
September 1, 2010 10:37 AM
Let's get one thing straight. No matter what, we are not taking Oklahoma with us.
Posted by: flatlander
|
September 1, 2010 10:40 AM
Hell, why not? We've already successfully repopulated state legislatures and governors' mansions with Neanderthals from Minnehaha to Texas.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 10:43 AM
Jules, can we reconclile?
If you kept TAFKAP in your earphones I think we could work things out.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 1, 2010 10:44 AM
Funny that bats come up in a discussion alongsideTexas.
About 20 million Mexican Freetail bats live in suburban San Antonio (Bracken Cave) from March to October. The Mexican Freetail is the species that famously lives under the Congress St bridge in Austin. They're also taking up residence under I-25 @ Camden in San Antonio. And a colony of 2 million lives in an old railroad tunnel near Fredericksburg in the Hill Country.
It's a good thing I like bats, or this would be a very creepy place to live.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 1, 2010 10:46 AM
I-35, not I-25. Duh
Posted by: natetheking
|
September 1, 2010 10:50 AM
Glass houses, PZ. We may have given you Tom Delay, but Minnesota gave us Michele Bachmann, and Washington gave us Glenn Beck.
Also, Texas gave us Willie Nelson. So there.
Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death
|
September 1, 2010 10:59 AM
Wilderness areas are already protected from mining, logging and motor vehicles. National Parks (with some exceptions for pre-existing claims and the National Preserves in Alaska) are already protected from mining and logging and other commercial activity except that allowed under concession regulations, and ATVs and snowmobiles are allowed only in severely restricted areas.
National Forests and BLM rangeland are, by statute, open for regulated commercial activity which can include logging, grazing and mining with locally variable restrictions. After all, the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture so harvesting is part of the reason for the forests.
Wilderness areas, whether NFS, NPS or BLM, have severe restrictions and are, within certain limits, allowed to 'run themselves.' If a forest fire is started by a lightning strike, the fire is monitored but, as long as it stays in the wilderness area, is allowed to burn. If the fire was started by a human (intentional or not), a decision is made as to whether to commit resources to containing the fire or, if it is in an area where a burn would be beneficial, it is allowed to burn free.
Multi-use areas, though, because they are managed for both recreation and commerce, will usually end up with an active attempt to control the fire. Often, though, even in multi-use areas, the fire is monitored and allowed to burn to keep the forest healthy.
As far as I know, very few areas in the lower 48 states have had a 'natural' fire cycle for thousands of years. Native Americans regularly set fires in the spring or fall to reduce undergrowth and increase game. Parts of the great plains were also regularly burned for the same reason. 1491, though it plays up the conflicts between thesis and antithesis, gives an excellent overview of pre-Columbian land management practices.
Sorry for the long comment. It really is an occupational hazard.
Posted by: KG
|
September 1, 2010 11:04 AM
Sightly OT, but there's a very interesting item on Ascension Island here: Charles Darwin's ecological experiment on Ascension isle. According to the article, when Darwin visited Ascension, it was largely barren. He suggested to Joseph Hooker that planting it with trees would create a self-sustaining ecosystem. Hooker persuaded the Admiralty, and a century and a half later, Ascension has lush cloud forests, of species mostly taken from Kew Gardens (where Hooker's father was director). Not a recreated ecosystem, but a novel one created almost ex nihilo by human action.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 1, 2010 11:05 AM
I knew you'd come around.
(I have a personal tradition of watching Purple Rain on New Year's Eve, but other than that, earphones are fine with me.)
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
September 1, 2010 11:46 AM
A Texan, a Nebraskan, and a Coloradan are walking along the road one day. Halfway stuck into the dust they find an old lamp, so the Nebraskan picks it up and rubs it (because that's what you do with lamps you find in the sand).
Out pops a genie. He says, "I'm the genie of the lamp. You get three wishes. That's one each."
The Nebraskan says, "Well, I'm a farmer and my pappy was a farmer before me and so was his pappy before him. So I wish Nebraska to be covered with fertile farmland."
Off in the distance they hear an enormous WHUMP! as endless tons of topsoil are dropped on Nebraska.
"And so it is done. Next."
With the Coloradan looking on, The Texan says, "I'm from Texas, and I intend to defend the honor of Texas. Genie, protect Texas from the ferriners: build a wall around it."
The genie thinks for a moment, and then the three heard a different sort of enormous WUMP! as some kind of wall was delivered to the border of Texas.
"And so it is done. Next."
"Genie, that is an impressive wall. This is not my wish: Can you describe this splendid wall you made?"
The genie, not used to such praise, beamed and smiled as he described his creation. "All around the border of Texas, it's twenty feet thick and fifty feet high and nothing can get in or out."
"Oh, very nice, Genie," said the Coloradan while smirking at the Texan. "Here's my wish: Fill it with water."
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 1, 2010 12:04 PM
*sigh*
People are such assholes.
No matter their political affiliations they never fail to disappoint me and make me sad to be a human.
Posted by: cuco3
|
September 1, 2010 12:06 PM
I like the idea of the European Green Belt: retaining the old "iron curtain" area as a wildlife preserve, stretching from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea.
A lot of land which is inadvertently - or incidentally disused by us becomes a useful wildlife haven. Areas used for military exercises, like parts of Salisbury Plain and the Brecon Beacons, for example.
Hedgerows have been important for ages, although they're under some threat as big fields make for efficient farming.
Roadside verges and railway tracks are also valuable habitats. Not so much for the big animals, of course, but for wild plants and insects they're great. They also provide a useful corridor for larger animals to get around.
There's a disused railway line, converted to a footpath through the centre of town which I use quite often. There's a marvellous array of wild flowers and lots of birds. And just a few paces to either side and you're in the middle of a builders yard, or a housing estate.
Human use doesn't necessarily prohibit wildlife, even excepting stuff like firing ranges. Two of my favourite areas are Dartmoor and the Norfolk Broads, both of which have been heavily shaped by human use, (although I don't think there's any peat digging in the Broads these days).
Posted by: dnebdal.myopenid.com
|
September 1, 2010 12:19 PM
@KG, 46:
That's downright fascinating, and I have a sudden desire to find out if it's possible to visit in anything resembling a convenient way. I expect not. :)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
September 1, 2010 12:29 PM
The whole idea of "re-wilding" is one of my favorites. Thinking about it in many variations. Not just recreating a pre-human ecology but a precolonial one as well. Out here in LA there have been areas where for some reason all the house have been abandoned and usually fenced off sometimes even knocked down where the trees and a large part of garden plants have been left it is interesting to see which of the plants survive and which thrive and reproduce and spread very few are from a climate that makes that probable. unfortunately it is rare that the land is left permanently to itself.
When I read the number of bat species I immediately thought of how many insects there would have to have been feed so many lives.
I do not hear any reference to insects at all in discussions of re-wilding seems strange (human?) seeing how important they are.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 1, 2010 1:49 PM
I know, Peter. it was a bit of a joke because I think that notions of cloning mammoths by merging mammoth DNA with elephant ova are wildly optimistic, so much so that starting with elephants might give you an cold-adapted pachyderm more quickly.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
September 1, 2010 2:27 PM
Yeah, get me out of Texas so I can spread my godless liberalism to those gawd-fearin' beet farmers in the West.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 1, 2010 2:36 PM
Oh, large-scale prairie restoration could be done, maybe, in 200 to 300 years.
Let's take the example of restoring 100 acres of prairie. First , you would need something like a thousand acres of prairie to find enough seed. And it's not just grasses, you need the flowers as well, a bare minimum of 75 species. 125-150 species would be much better.
It would take 50 people 3-4 months of full time picking to gather all the seed. Of course the seed would have to be dried and mixed, just a huge project.
Site prep is paramount. All vegetation must be removed and all dormant weed seed killed. Repeated light plowing over two years and multiple passes with Weed Dragon propane torches should get the job done.
Hand-seeding the site is preferred. It would take, I dunno, 200 people, maybe more.
Estimated cost? At least $500,000.
Posted by: Tom
|
September 1, 2010 2:43 PM
Re-wilding - it would never be allowed.
If the public ever found out that just letting the buffalo roam around and look after themselves was more productive than the high input cattle industry who knows what would happen!
Posted by: Multicellular
|
September 1, 2010 3:13 PM
Also never going to happen because cattle ranchers would oppose it. Bison are carriers of brucellosis and other cattle diseases - and the beef lobby has a lot of sway in Washington. There's just too much at steak [rimshot].
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/B2rU5fh6nMbTxQtxj55u_V._xvaV2U4-#51d26
|
September 1, 2010 3:23 PM
MosesZD #3
That estimate is probably off by some orders of magnitude. For example, from Science 309 1387 (2005):
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 1, 2010 3:30 PM
There was a very interesting article in the March issue of Discover Magazine about a similar experiment in the Netherlands. But the central idea is that large herbivores is what maintains the rest of the biodiversity of the grassy plains. Eliminating them results in forestation and a huge reduction in diversity. That's why reintroducing bison and elephant is a key feature, not fencing off the land from any grazing. [that's just my understanding of the article, I am not trying to argue the validity of it]
Posted by: chassoto
|
September 1, 2010 4:39 PM
Screw all y'all! You can start with moving all the damn Californicators outta mah precious state!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
September 1, 2010 5:35 PM
... the Texans would just be spread around more.
One of my favorite graffiti, from when I lived in the mountains of New Mexico:
If God meant for Texans to ski,
she would have made bullshit white.
Posted by: mothra
|
September 1, 2010 5:56 PM
Oh, give me a place,
with the wind in my face,
where the dirt and the ice crystals flay.
And I'll show you a spot,
a monotonous spot,
where the skies are a permanent gray!
Home, home on the plains,
where nary a bison remains.
Where seldom a word,over wind, over heard.
and the skies are not cloudy, that's clay!
Posted by: mothra
|
September 1, 2010 6:35 PM
But seriously, How many would be in favor of 're-wilding' when they find out that we must reconstitute (or possibly locate relict non-swarming populations) of the most likely extinct Rocky Mountain locust- Melanoplus spretus. If we are trying to recreate a former prairie ecosystem, RML's were a major part- just like bison. And the locusts could NOT be confined to the prairies.
How far back do we go? I'd rather have titanotheres than a mere mammoth.
In the first iteration of this loony tunes idea, the term 'Buffalo commons' was used.
Posted by: llewelly
|
September 1, 2010 7:51 PM
I find the idea of Pleistocene Rewilding luridly fascinating. It's a brillant idea extrapolated to such stunning scale that it becomes a mad vision of a world that could never be. The NAWAPA or Project Orion of conservation.
I'd love to read a good SF novel about a dedicated effort to implement Pleistocene Rewilding (especially if it covered myriad problems and unintended side effects), but in real life, conservation should stick to nature preserves, just as space exploration should focus on small robot probes.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 1, 2010 8:09 PM
Bison we got, pronghorns we got, wolves we can get if we want em. Mammoths are going to be tough but it sure would be cool to see some African elephants up by Ponca City. Giant ground sloths and sabertooths are going to be really tough.
But we could start with tortoises...
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 1, 2010 9:06 PM
I wonder if Galapagos tortoises would like Joshua-tree fruit?
Posted by: areyoulistening
|
September 2, 2010 1:44 AM
That's...a bad thing? You mean it's better to have one large state as a major nexus for a party that otherwise only finds support in areas with extremely low population density?I mean, sure, maybe a bunch of us would have to put up with more crazy fundies in our neighborhoods, but I think that's a very fair trade-off - better to have them annoying me than taking up congressional seats that could be put to much better use in a baboon cage. Granted, I'm Canadian and wouldn't have to deal with it, but I would love to see this applied to Alberta...
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
September 2, 2010 5:48 PM
Please! There are scientists, and artists, and Unitarians in Texas. Don't overgeneralize.