amenoum.org blog blog_entry 0 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits

B . L O G

[ 2021.09.28 ] Colossal mistakes
MESSAGE 0003: BEGIN
Log author: by Amenoum
Log date: 2021.09.28
This world still has much to learn. It appears some people want to bring back mammoths, apparently to save the planet (!). So, let's get some things straight... Genome (DNA) and gene expression (regulation) are two different things. DNA is a library of code, a set of routines (generally recipes for protein building). Almost identical set is shared among many animals, but what makes us different from monkeys is not much in the routines, rather in programming [of the epigenome] which determines what routines to run, when and with what parameters. While a lot of this programming may also be inherited together with DNA, it is influenced by environment and other factors and can be significantly altered during life, especially beyond the embryonic development. Update in Colossal mistakes.
Genes and coding of gene expression also cannot explain organizing activity of cells and proteins equivalent to organized behaviour of bacteria in biofilms. Biofilms are not organized according to genetics in individual bacteria. In my theories, this requires entanglement of souls of individuals of particular species, a superposition of which is reflected in a soul of the localized collective that now forms an organ[ism]. This soul is not spontaneously created out of nothing, it is inflated from space (it is a quantum of space - a graviton, in my theories). Individuals can affect the soul of the collective but vice versa is also true. Soul oscillates in scale and sometimes the soul may trigger the organization of bacteria (cells) into a new organism, sometimes vice versa. Causality is relative and this coupling generally should be considered as a result of synchronicity. However, wherever the production of individuals is strongly localized (eg. during embryonic development) the induction of soul inflation may be a favoured interpretation. In case where soul inflation precedes localization of individuals the collective may be interpreted as a precursor of a future organ[ism] whose localization in the future will be forced by the environment (eg. uterus).
One such environment is uterus, which in this case will be the uterus of an elephant. With current technology one can alter the genome. And that is what this company is advertising - selecting traits (like resistance to cold) of a mammoth and making them part of elephant DNA. The plan is thus to make an elephant that should look like a mammoth. That has problems (likely premature birth due to inadequate environment - elephant uterus), but it is doable. However, the company claims that this hybrid will also behave like a mammoth - live in cold areas in the north, positively affect the climate with its mammoth habits, and consequently, save the planet. That cannot be guaranteed, and is, unlikely. Even if we disregard the soul (the existence of which is not yet acknowledged by modern science) and its influence on epigenome, behaviour of this animal is uncertain. Who will teach it to behave like a mammoth, if it does not get mammoth instincts? If we do put the soul into equation, its behaviour becomes more predictable. The body of this mammoth can not couple with a soul of another mammoth (there are no dying mammoths), so it will couple with a soul of another elephant.
Note that, per my hypotheses, souls oscillate interspecies (between different scales of life). Soul of an elephant should be understood as a soul that includes elephant species in its oscillation. Thus, it is not necessary for an elephant to die for this animal to come to life, death of any individual of any of the species included in this oscillation will provide a compatible soul. However, souls evolve too, so the probability for coupling with altered (or evolutionary old) genomes is decreasing proportionally to alteration. Not only that, the strength of coupling depends on compatibility. If the coupling is weak, consciousness of the animal will be subdued, it will be more prone to loss of consciousness and will have a greater chance of premature death. In the worst case (extreme genetic difference), its life may be purely vegetative.
The elephant instinct will at some point resurface and, with no guidance of a mammoth parent, this hybrid will end up in Africa - where it will be dying of heat due to all that extra fur. Then what? We're gonna put it in a zoo as an attraction and claim how we saved it? In that case, it would be better to kill the animal, but then this would not be a success story for us - if it is in a zoo, we can earn money on it and claim that the project is not a complete failure. I have nothing against mammoths, in fact, more mammoths and less such people is better for the planet, but this is not a mammoth, this is a project someone expects to earn a lot of money on. This company is not much different from a bunch of other startups delivering rendered future to attract investors. It is a model politicians are very familiar with - promise a lot of stuff and convince a lot of people (including yourself) that you can deliver them so you get their support (money). When you fail, you blame someone or something else, ask for more support or promise something else. Whatever. Fake western care... as usual.
MESSAGE 0003: END