Most people have heard of the wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, or the dodo. Science education, even from a young age has made sure of that their existence is known and some may have seen fossils of the beasts in a museum. These creatures roamed the Earth thousands of years ago when our species was just getting started. Today, they are long gone but science and modern technology is beginning to question that reality. In the conservation biology class I am currently taking here at the College of Charleston, which I highly recommend, we had to select a book to read to broaden our views of conservation and our environment. The one I chose was How to Clone a Mammoth by Beth Shapiro. In Shapiro’s book she explored the new science of de-extinction, which is essentially resurrecting animals that no longer exist. While I will not spoil the excitement of the end, the author did however delve into the fascinating aspects of bringing back mammoths; the means of either cloning or gene editing in elephants to make them mimic mammoths as a key part of the process. She also closely examines the ethical questions and the potential environmental impacts that would come with reintroducing an extinct animal into the wild. Shapiro argues for de-extinction in the name of restoring or reviving ecosystems such as the arctic tundra with the reintroduction of mammoths. Hypothetically if this feat of bringing mammoths back was successful, then they could potentially stop the melting of permafrost by packing it back down. The author also notes that she does not believe that a resurrected species be displayed in a zoo for tourism like some kind of trophy. This species coming back from the dead would theoretically provide great ecosystem services both culturally and environmentally if the feat could be achieved. However, there is the question of whether this is morally right or wrong. If we have the technology and the science to bring something that we helped go extinct back, should we? Shapiro wrestles with this question throughout the book asking the reader what they think. After reading, I contemplated this question myself. I personally concluded that it could not hurt to try. I believe that the worst-case scenario is that the new species just dies out again, but if it succeeds then humans could utilize this to save other ecosystems that we as humans depend on. I see this new biological technology as a tool for good and it gives me hope for the future. With all that said and done I really do encourage people to pick up this fascinating book in their spare time!

Source: Shapiro, Beth. How to Clone a Mammoth: the Science of De-Extinction. Princeton University Press, 2016.

On my weekends here in South Carolina’s low country, I can commonly be found either exploring a new beach or woodlands. It’s my escape from the gradually increasing fast-paced life of downtown; and, as a biology major, a favorite pass time. On my outings, I’ve seen a vast amount of South Carolina’s wild residents from deer to alligators. While these encounters are typical for me, they definitely aren’t for everyone. When I told one of my friends from D.C. that my ecology lab involved us wading in wild swamps, she seemed quite horrified. I didn’t think much of it until I had to read an article on American culture and nature for a sociology class. The article is titled Natures Looking Glass and it delved in to how a pair of red-tailed hawks fascinated city-goers in Manhattan. The hawks chose the ledge of an NYU building to start building a nest to raise a family. The students took notice and set up a camera to capture what everyone felt was “pure nature”. They were all entranced by the hawks’ daily life and a professor took notice of the students’ view of nature. They looked at it as “unspoiled” and “unaffected by humans”. Their bubble was soon popped when the hawk couple began to add human products to their nesting materials. People criticized the choice of material as “unnatural” and disrupted peoples images of the hawks being “natural”. Sociologists went on to describe how people living in more urban setting tend to view nature as separate from humans. They termed this as “asocial nature”. Sitting back for a moment, I realized how odd this sounded to me. Growing up in rural South Carolina, nature was everywhere.  It was totally normal to see white tail deer a few times a week or to see otters around the lake streams. I personally had never thought of nature as separate from humans. After college, I plan on being an ecologist and after reading how some people have an asocial nature viewpoint; I think its even more imperative to educate people on nature. While I don’t think people should go up to bobcats or alligators wanting to “connect with nature” I do think that people should understand that we as humans are also animals and that we should not subtract ourselves from that category given that we share a lot of common needs with the rest of the animal kingdom. Conservation biology would probably go a lot smoother if people accepted themselves as part of nature and thus have even better reason to protect it. I encourage everyone to get to know your local ecosystems.

Source:Angelo, Hillary, and Colin Jerlomack. “Nature’s Looking Glass.” Vol. 11, ser. 1, 23 July 2012, pp. 24–29. 1, doi:10.1177/1536504212436492.

So it was a typical day that I was scrolling through instagram when I passed anad that was seemingly relevant to my shopping tastes. The ad was for a company called RiceLove. It advertised bags that were made out of recycled rice bags and other materials. They looked very pretty and unique so I clicked on the link to the website out of curiosity and boredom. I was surprised to find that this company claimed to give 1 kilo (2.2 pounds) of rice for every bag they sell to families, elderly, and single mothers in need in the country of India. It sounds really good on paper, but they don’t stop there. Their products come with a special number used to look up a family that receives the rice. I clicked on the link and it brought me to pictures of people and families of India posing with a large bag of rice with the company’s logo on it. That would seem like proof enough, right? It almost did to me but I wondered about the actual legitimacy of it. Whether these pictures were actually one of hundreds who got rice or were they just a few stock photos, just to keep customers from further wondering. I started digging around more and discovered that they have a blog. Their blog had recently been updated on February 5, 2018 and featured a widow and her son getting some rice. Seems pretty legit but I decided to search for their company via the Better Business Bureau. That didn’t work so I decided to email one of the co-founders. It took a few days but he finally got back to me. His name was Corbin Thomander and he gave me a great answer in a lengthy email, which I have shared below. Basically, he stated that the company also has a headquarters in India that provided a safe and ethical work environment for people there and they are registered LLC (limited liability company) which is more private. Interestingly enough, Thomander also claimed that the BBB is corrupt and added a 20/20 investigation link. I was very impressed with his detailed response and I can say that I am convinced of their good deeds to the less fortunate of India. I will most definitely be purchasing one of their beautiful bags soon from ricelove.org!