Not to take away from any conservation efforts to reduce or reverse these extinctions, but: is cloning a viable replacement strategy? Is it conceivable that in 100-200 years, cloning and re-introducing an extinct species will be fairly affordable (on a small scale)?
Judging from this article on Wikipedia, work is underway in this field, although it hasn't been too fruitful yet.
Habitats are very complex interrelationships. Even IF cloning brings them back in future, we won't have their natural habitats and niches. It's like saving the threads but not knowing how to sew them back together into a garment. That's why habitat protection is non-negotiable if we want to save Earth's biodiversity.
It’s not just the habitats that are complex, either. Intelligent mammals like whales and elephants, orcas and dolphins, actually have their own culture as well, and by culture I mean survival specific knowledge passed down between generations.
Simply cloning one of these animals and dumping it into the ocean reminds me of seal conservation efforts where seals were rehabilitated and then basically dumped into the ocean and swiftly eaten by orcas. A naïve approach is unlikely to work.
It's not just that a few species go extinct. Whole ecosystems change. In 100 years the environment might not be suitable for the species anymore (e.g. reintroduction of wooly mammoths would be a disaster today) due to global issues (temperature, co2, acidity/salinity), but also local issues such as losing food sources, breeding grounds or some other species already filling the empty niche.
> Not to take away from any conservation efforts to reduce or reverse these extinctions,
Presumably one reason the loss of species is bad because it lessens biodiversity. If extinct species could be re-introduced in a more amenable future, then that would be a good thing, no?
Animals are not automatons. They socialize, depend on each other, and teach each other. They all have means of communicating. Essentially, they have cultures. If you were to introduce cloned animals into the wild after natural ones had died, there would be no other animals of their kind who could teach them how to do various things necessary to their survival, or teach them how to communicate. Moreover, there is no guarantee that any future environment would be more amenable. For most animals, we would have no idea what that meant, no way to measure it.
Even if cloning was an option, extinction is just a side effect of habitat erosion. Without habitat, there's no place where those species, even when cloned, could thrive.
I don't thing that cloning would be our best bet. And would be really expensive making it impractical.
Specially with those huge animals. Would need incredibly complex and humongous laboratories just for trying to hold each 3000 Kg newborn. Avoiding contamination and making the embryo cameras sterile for months would be a real headache.
We must forget the idea that cloning will save the day someday, be smart and use our narrow and shrinking interval of opportunity to act now.
Pushing solutions into the future is exactly why we ended up with this mess in the first place.
Similarly, governments right now are competing with each other who declares the most ambitious climate plan to be realised by 2050, instead of doing something right now.
Judging from this article on Wikipedia, work is underway in this field, although it hasn't been too fruitful yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Cloning_extinct_and_en...