Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST WEEKEND AT a TEDx conference in Washington DC sponsored by National Geographic, scientists met to discuss which animals should be brought back from extinction. They also discussed the how, why and ethics of doing so.
They called it ‘de-extinction‘.
A cover story for this month’s National Geographic explains how de-extinction rests on a relatively simple premise: it involves taking old DNA samples, reassembling them into a full genome which is then injected into embryonic cells which have had their own DNA taken out, and then finding a suitable living surrogate to give birth.
The Washington Post reports that ten years ago, a team of scientists from France and Spain almost brought back an extinct wild goat – but it only lived for 10 minutes. It raises a host of issues, including how scientists can get a good enough sample of DNA from the extinct animal – and whether or not they should.
There are a few guidelines for which ancient species are considered, and sadly, dinosaurs are so long dead they aren’t in the picture. Their DNA has long ago degraded, so researchers are fairly sure that Jurassic Park will never happen.
(Video: National Geographic/YouTube)
They chose the animals using the following criteria: Are the species desirable – do they hold an important ecological function or are they beloved by humans? Are the species practical choices – do we have access to tissue that could give us good quality DNA samples or germ cells to reproduce the species? And are they able to be reintroduced into the world – are the habitats in which they live available and do we know why they went extinct in the first place?
Even with the criteria, this still leaves plenty of other animals on the table. The list of candidates is actually pretty long, considering.
The cost of de-extinction varies by species but projects could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Then there’s also the cost of housing the animals once they are created, and re-introducing them into the world and protecting them from poachers once they are there.
But if you were the zoo that had that one woolly mammoth or saber-toothed cat, these costs might just be worth it.
Here are 22 of the 24 animals they are hoping to one day resurrect.
- Jennifer Walsh with additional reporting by Christine Bohan
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe bring back the celtic tiger for about 50 years
What those years of out of control shoddy building, plumbers on €1200 a week, pretentious snobby uppity people swanning around, €10 for a coffee and a miserable bun, box room apartments at €300, 000 a pop, no irish staff in hotels and bars, traffic congestion, galway tent etc etc …. I think we should leave the celtic tiger where he is… extinct
I’m all for it. We can at least fix a tiny bit of damage we’ve caused to this planet…
Bring back the birds I say except the DoDo ; One Enda is enough !
What??? Ah no, definitly bring back the dodo, its supposed to be delicious
I can see it now… Cheap dodo breasts on sale in Aldi!
Then a scandal about Moho dna.
So you think by interfering in nature by regrowing a long extinct species is a good thing. I wouldn’t be so sure. We would’ve better off protecting the species that are still here.
agree totally. leave it alone. damage is done. lets concentrate on preventing more extinctions Now.
We interfered in the first place by killing them off. This is just undoing the damage we caused.
Can they not just cure cancer first!
Maybe the scientists involved here don’t know anything about cancer.
Would it not occur to you that maybe these scientists haven’t a clue about cancer? There are many pressing concerns in the world, but that doesn’t mean that those not qualified in those particular fields should stop working, exploring, researching, innovating, etc.
I want a pet T rex
I wish they’d bring back Trigger bars
Curing cancer is very ambiguous and it is unlikely a complete cure for cancer will ever be developed. Cancer is a name given to an extremely complexed heterogeneous group of diseases and quite natural in evolutionary terms. Plus this is far more fun!
Miranda is absolutely correct. The idea that there is a cure for cancer is a media and indeed science invented theory. There will never be a cure for all cancers… that is if you consider a cure to be a complete prevention. Good therapy after someone is diagnosed is the best scenario that we are trying to achieve. It’s quite nieve to think that all scientists are involved in cancer research, I certainly am but a lot of my colleagues are into energy harvesting, new drug delivery techniques, painless injections, rapid trauma wound healing… the list is endless. Then you have the cool scientists that get to work with DNA and cloning. Although we all have expertise in the basic techniques, what they are going to do is no easy task… quite a mammoth one to be honest! :P
They are curing types of cancer. I would settle for them curing a cold. Neither of which has anything to do with this article.
If they bring back the wooly mammoth I’m not clearing up his poo.
“Why don’t they just cure cancer” comments show a basic lack of understanding for what cancer actually is. Every single type of cancer you can get is a different disease in its own right. You cannot develop a blanket treatment for hundreds of different diseases.
The only reason why they ask you to fund cancer research as a blanket is because it increases donations. If they ask you to donate for specifically pancreatic cancer, which the lab might specialise in, it could significantly reduce donation numbers.
Thanks Jason for repeating what has already been said in earlier posts. We got it the first time!
Absolutely spot on Jason, If I were to approach people in the street and ask for donations for “nanomedicine”…it would mean absolutely nothing to them!! We are developing a detection and treatment platform for a range of breast cancers and pancreatic cancers, but being too specific is a no go in terms of funding. Also people want to hear that a “cure” is out there…as cancerous cells exist in our bodies on a daily basis…you can’t cure it!! The immune system and the cell defence mechanism can kill all of these cancerous cells…it’s only when the damaged cell persists that you “get cancer”… The treatments developed to date however can be considered close to a cure for many people who respond to them, as cancer is as varied as your fingerprints…it’s difficult to tell if one treatment will totally eradicate the cancer!
Ah but you never know what knowledge gained, and the knock on effects could be from bringing back extinct species.
This exercise could lead to amazing discoveries.
Bring back Bertie…oh wait….
It’s why they bringing these animals back..
So we can do animal testing on them
watch Burzynski. there’s billions of dollars in machines, medication, and education for chemo/radiation, people have based their lives on this and it’s part of their identity at this point and have degrees to do just that. i doubt they would actually introduce a cure to cancer.
Oh God, I hope they bring back elvis!!!!!!!!
Welcome to earth
They already did,
he’s a vampire called Bubba
I get comfort from knowing that they didn’t put any Elvis music on Voyager’s gold plates. Becuase when our star goes nova Elvis and his music will be erased from history.
A Mammoth task….
Hope they don’t make a balls of it as scientists did when they brought out the love bugs here in Florida to rid of the mosquitoes. Harmless to humans but when splattered into car bodies the acid in their body’s destroy the paintwork within weeks
Yeah scientists didn’t create the Love bug it just migrated from mexico http://www.snopes.com/critters/lurkers/lovebugs.asp
no Velociraptors?
The DNA for dinosaurs is too old and has fully degraded. The half-life of DNA is only 521 years.
Many factors affect DNA live and while 521 is the recognized half life, samples of DNA have been found in and animals(see neanderthals) that are over 100000 years old
You added about 2 extra zeroes there buddy… :)
I think attempting to “de-extinct” species that have gone extinct recently is a good idea, especially if it was cause by human influence/negligence. So the Thylacine or passenger pidgeon or Dusky seaside sparrow would be good examples. However, trying to resurrect the Mammoth or Sabre-tooth Tiger would be attempted just to prove it can be done…which I disagree with.
Bring back the Dodo I reckon.
It’s very likely that the mammoth and the sabre toothed tiger became extinct because of humans. The arrival of humans in significant numbers always seems to be followed by megafauna extinctions.
Early humans did not soley cause the extinction of megafauna such as the mammoth or Sabre-tooth Tiger. They may have contributed, but the main cause was climate change.
That is a fashionable hypothesis but unlikely. The climate changed an awful lot in the million years or so before humans reached those parts, and mammoths and sabre tooths did just fine
Well the last known bunch of mammoths were on an island that hadn’t had any human contact and they still died off. I think they should all be brought back if possible, but starting with the most recent!
That’s true but the passenger pigeon shows that you don’t actually need to wipe out the last breeding pair. Big reductions in numbers can make the species unviable or very vulnerable. The orangutans are in deep trouble even if we never cut down another tree.
I agree that last out first in makes lots of sense.
It is a species first task to preserve their own existence. So. Imagine we live in an ecosystem where we and our children are being regularly taken by a large feline predator, with whom a chance encounter spells certain death.
The logical and correct course of action for a clever hunter/gatherer / cultivator species – devise and execute a plan to eliminate that predator from our environment.
… No sabertooths please.
The sabre tooths bone structure is actually different to modern big-cats therefore its really a step in evolution thats had its day. The tasmanian tiger should be brought back though but wooly mammoth like the sabre-tooth had its day.
You guys are forgetting that it will likely be zoos and laboratories funding these experiments. They’re not going to blow potentially millions bringing back a mammoth just to throw it out into the wild where it can easily be killed. These animals will likely be kept in captivity if they are brought back to rake in the visitors.
…and still no hover boards :(
Or house robots…
or Holophones.
Or flying cars…
I would love to see a return of the Wooly Mammoth and the Dodo bird but not too keen on the sabre toothed Smilidon ..
Saber-toothed cats are one of my favorite species. They won’t let them into the wild, probably keep them in zoos.
We’ve got to have something to keep the wooly mammoth and mastodon population under control. Oh wait, they’re still extinct. I guess it’s going to be all in the timing. Get the prey up to a reasonable number, then introduce the predators. All I can say is, people living in the Yukon and other northern reaches of Canada, better start putting up those big electric fences now!
Every kid from every generation will tell you … Bring back the mammoth, .. They still have a spark of life in the deep-dive memory of our species. I never saw a live one, but I’m sure some of my ancestors did, and I’m sure that the last man to see a live one would have described it in vivid and exciting detail to their children. That last living encounter would have handed forward to each next generation.
Think about it. If the average human lifespan over the past 4000 years was say 40, then just 100 word of mouth tellings would carry not just an academic record, but an actual recall of a living encounter. It is almost inconceivable that there isn’t someone out there who’s father or grandfather told them of the time when “we” used to hunt wollie mammoths. … We’ve all seen the pictures, remember the “cave art” ? we don’t have stories of hunting T Rex, why? Because we know it didn’t happen. We do have stories of hunting mammoth. Why ? Because we know it did happen! How do we know? “We” remember it! , We drew the pictures on the walls of our caves.!
Bring back the wollie mammoth. We owe it to them.
no, you don’t have a baby when you die, and if you did you wouldn’t be able to communicate with them years after when they can potentially understand.
you’re missing the point of his comment
Very well said. I want the Mammoth (and Mastodon) back, we can put them in the Yukon and in Siberia where they will feel at home in the snowy forests. Only I recommend then, that we bring Smilodon back, too. Gotta have a natural predator, and Dire Wolves aren’t on the list of animals to bring back.
I also want to see the Thylacine (it’s even item 2 on my 5-part bucket list).
If they are allowed to live a normal life and not be forced into zoos and circuses I see no problem in this.
A box on a piece of paper somewhere has just been ticked because of your comment! ;)
They wont be able to live in the wild though… the article states it will be costly “But if you were the zoo that had that one woolly mammoth or saber-toothed cat, these costs might just be worth it.” I dont think they will let any of the other animals roam free either, having an extinct animal is like having a theme park in your zoo. Leave the extinct alone and focus on preventing future extinctions!
Jurassic freakin’ Park!
Seconded. Just have better security then electric fences.
I don’t think we have much to fear. By the looks of it they mostly want to bring back a load of birds you’ve never heard of. Sabre tooth tiger would be pretty cool though
No chance of Jurassic Park. DNA has a half-life of 521 years. At ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would be unreadable junk after 1.5 million years. So no dinosaurs. Plus I think Sam Neill has learned better by now
Spoilsport!!
Prehistoric Park, maybe ;-)
Terrible idea. We can’t preserve the species we have due to the growing population, de-forestation and farming so what makes them think we can sustain new ones.
Introducing new predators/prey into an ecological system can upset the balance and end up doing more harm than good.
I can just see these poor creatures being confined to zoo’s and existing merely for the public to gawk at.
Great point, they are not doing this for any other reason than ego, they should instead focus on the animals that are at most risk of becoming extinct.
Couldn’t agree more Amanda. These herberts merely enjoyed Jurassic park a little too much, and are typically arrogant to boot. THEY will choose which specimens to resurrect! Completely ignoring the fact that there are whole orders of living animals under dire threat of extinction because of the ever increasing spread of US – themost voracious and destructive species ever seen. I would vote that they spend their energies more constructively.
We are a product of nature and so far we have been disaster and an extinction event. We should try and preserve first and foremost, but if we can resurrect a species, without destroying another, I see no reason why we should not.
Perhaps in 50-100 years time we’ll be able to spawn any animal that we desire.
Ethics and emotion, I fear, will play a much larger role in this than they should. If our species can prove that we can revive any other extinct species, then the words ‘endangered’ will have lost most of its meaning. The evolution of humanity revolves around our understanding and control of the universe. While our understanding has been growing exponentially over the past centuries, our control has only recently begun to flourish. Now we’re progressing towards the control of life itself, as scary as that is. This ‘de-extinction’ is merely the next step in the process.
This is not to say that we should destroy all natural habitats for our own progress, only to resurrect the consequent extinctions for use in zoos and whatnot. Steadily we’re coming to understand our new-found control over the planet. One would hope that we’ll soon have figured out the problems surrounding issues such as your mentioned — growing population and deforestation — in turn lessening our effects on the natural world.
So science isn’t only learning how to revive these animals, its discovering methods to better preserve them. Try to think of the issue with more than the present in mind.
Of course, the enemy at all times is greed. Forget all hopes of a sustainable future should human greed persist unabated.
Poor animals, one way or the other we just can’t leave them alone, we kill them off, then we want to bring them back to satisfy our own massive egos
…. Or to undo the damage we did in the first place.
Well, since we are the most advanced animals on planet Earth, I believe we have a right to use our planet as we see fit – even if it is to satisfy our egos.
we dont have the “right” because we are more advanced, we have the responsibility
Why can’t we “produce” more animals at risk of extinction in the hope that breeding increases and they avoid extinction – such as the oranutan.
Breeding programs have worked for many endangered animals already, but for many others it’s difficult or impossible to get them to breed in captivity, which is essential for such a program.
This was my immediate thought as well. DNA samples and surrogates wouldn’t be as much of a concern, and it could be a good stepping stone to see if this process is even likely for already extinct species.
I would have thought the Great Irish Elk would be a good candidate for de-extinction?
Bring back the extinct Irish forests first.
I think we should bring back proofreading to journalism.
This is a fascinating prospect, no doubt there could be some teething problems, however, over time these could be ironed out, further study of DNA and genome mapping will change the world radically in the future.
Leave alone stop messing with nature.
Last time I checked humans are part of nature. All our actions are part of nature. If humanity does this its nature taking its course.
Spot on Barry.
Yeah, like H-bombs and chemical weapons, CO2 levels and plastic in the oceans are all part of nature. Brilliant.
You’d have to concede that not messing with nature means we leave cancer alone to do its thing. By your reasoning if (and it’ll never happen, obviously) we found a way to stop earthquakes in densely populated areas we shouldn’t mess with nature and leave it be. Nature left to its own device’s accounts for a great many of the <99% of species that have ever lived on earth but which are now extinct.* Hardly a compelling statistic for "stop messing with nature."
Nature can be further anthropomorphised as an unthinking, uncaring organism that we are fortunate enough to understand and control certain aspects of. I'll concede that we are capable of making things worse in certain circumstances but we've got to at least try if we've gained knowledge which affords us the possibility of making things better. That's got to better than unthinking.
* http://www.scientistsolutions.com/t7274-over+99_+of+species+that+ever+lived+are+now+extinct.html.
My point is any animal brought back from extinction will probably not have a life of true freedom to live with out the horror of the consequences of poachers . That is my concern. I have no problem with the concept.
Mankind the creator life. That’s something to be proud of. Better than mankind the destroyer of life.
Bring back the T-Rex and the velociraptor – all sponsored by Ingin corporation and release them in to the forests sur why not a bit of craic- the newspaper headlines would b fun-
Campers attacked by T-Rex
I wonder how much the tickets will b to Jurassic Park – I’m sure there will b a coupon day or something
wow… did you read the article?
“There are a few guidelines for which ancient species are considered, and sadly, dinosaurs are so long dead they aren’t in the picture. Their DNA has long ago degraded, so researchers are fairly sure that Jurassic Park will never happen.”
They could bring Jebus back :)
He never went away. He lives in all our hearts. Or that’s what I hear anyway.
or a bit of tasteless bread that his believers keep eating
They should resurrect man-bear-pig.
It sounds good, but the introduction of a new (or old species that has been absent for so long) can have such a domino effect. I know they try to estimate how it affects the food chain, but there are always things they didn’t predict.
But moreover, the same shit that was happening before is happening now. The natural habitats of most of these are still getting smaller and poaching is still rife. Even if we’re keeping them in captivity, then it kinda would feel like we were just reviving them for entertainment / curiosity.
It’s good for science though, yes. But that poor goat who just lived for 10 minutes!
It was born with a part of its lung completely hard and solid… it’s better this way.
I have serious reservations about the ethics of bringing the mammoth back. Polar bears are having a hard enough time given our planets current warming trend. I have my doubts that the Mammoth could thrive in today’s environment.
what about a zoo?
Kitty! Saber-toothed Kitty!
i am the only that wants to see them bring back those huge birds bigger then ostrich by more then twice there hieght
Do they have an important ecological function? Obviously not if we have been living without them for thousands of years. It’s an ego boost these lads are after. Bringing animals back doesn’t fix anything. What good Does it do us to send a man to the moon when we ourselves cannot live even on earth? We are the ones who need to turn to Christ and be fixed. Some of that comment was to one of the posters who suggested we could bring animals back and fix the damage done.
Unlike Christ, there is evidence that these animals actually existed
Maybe they could try to clone Jesus from the Turin Shroud??
Actually Steven, putting a man on the moon did us a lot of good.
If you wanna spout your religious spiel, fine, go ahead, but don’t lie about the science parts.
Turn to Christ and be fixed? Who made humans broken? Stephen it is very hard to actually take you seriously when everything you comment on comes back to Christ.
If God made the world he certainly made a balls of it.
Tim. Dinosaurs eh? Dear oh dear. Nah i dont believe….
Go to sleep Stephen
Tim, saying that Christ did not exist is like saying that Pontius Pilate did not exist either. Don’t you mean to say God?
We don’t “need” superstitions to be “fixed”. An appreciation for happyness and the happyness of others is all we should strive for. “Turn to Christ”… bah. Turn to your fellow beings instead. At least you KNOW that life on earth is real and if God is real I’m sure he wants us to act on what we KNOW first because he would have given us logic.
Stephen, “important ecological function” what does that mean? Do you have a important ecological function?
@Declan, actually i did mean Jesus, although I don’t see any evidence for God either.
Outside of the gospels there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed.
We know Pontius Pilate existed because he was a governor and so there were Roman records of him.
However there are no Jewish or Roman records of the trial or crucifixion of Jesus, hence no evidence he existed.
The first Roman reference to a group know as the Christians doesn’t appear till almost a century later.
I don’t consider the gospels evidence as they were written decades after the events them claim to describe, in a different language (Greek, while Jesus and his followers were supposedly from Galilee and therefore would have spoken Aramaic)
And what most Christians don’t realise is the writers of gospels were anonymous and only ascribed to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in later centuries.
Personally I think a preacher called Jesus probably did exist but as I said, there is no actual evidence.
Tim, I give you a green thumb for your comment. You know your stuff. I take my hat off to you.
Top marks for that Tim!
@Tim, try explaining that to my mother! And nearly every other mother on this island! All they hear is “BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!” Just like all religious nuts! :)
Here’s a thought, why is it we regard the extinction of species because of us unnatural? Are we not also part of the animal kingdom? Therefore the results of our rise on the planet is natural selection, Darwinism. So why bring extinct species back?
Just a thought,…
I think you can further extrapolate your point and ask ‘Why not bring extinct species back?’
Nevermind animals, bring back James Connolly to sort this place out!
This is pretty cool! I hope it works out . But I’m sure much more can be done to preserve animals close to extinction
I say bring back 2Pacasaurus Rex,
UNEXTINCTION…….. because killing them all the first time wasn’t enough……….
“The Thylacine, or Tasmanian Tiger, is the only marsupial to make the list. It lived in Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea until the 1960s.”
Wow, I guess the real story here is that Tasmania was apparently ejected from Australia at some point.
No pigeons please and thanks ! Seen a programme about them trying to clone the passenger pigeon on CNN *shudder*
Bring back Charlie Haughey by no means an angel but he had a pair to stand up Merkel and co
Apart from the time it would take, would it be possible, using elephants and selective breeding, to breed mammoths back into existence? Or alternatively, gallons of regain applied daily.
Dave Harris – it isn’t rocket science as the boring cliche of the day demands. WE for all our pomp depend on animals for various reasons. Animals do not require us, in any shape or form. All that animals require is to be left alone to do their own thing. We don’t need any ‘knowledge’ other than that as to how to preserve existing species. We have to stop, hunting, poaching, exploiting and generally tormenting the hundreds of species we are driving to extinction and to stop destroying their habitat. Job done.
They might bring certain types of animals back but not individual animals, that points to something, we are just animals with names
What happened to survival of the fittest?
We happened.
A bigger turkey,make it just for Christmas
Bring them back to life please – we need some new meat on the menu.
Has Jurassic Park taught us nothing?! Surely we should’ve learned from Jurassic Parks 2&3? Jeff Goldblum is no spring chicken
Bring back dolly the sheep! :-/
Twink..
Want sorry
Jurassic park
I won’t a Tyrannosaurus
What about the Ivory Billed Woodpecker?????
nvm…..
Yay! Bring back T-Rex!
We can’t manage or protect the living species or their habitats at home or abroad the money could be better spent,
Ah you’re a cheery burger. Did it ever occur to you that by discovering how to bring back extinct species could very well provide knowledge on how to keep existing species from extinction? including our own?
Human innovation should be allowed to de-extinct these creatures to allow us to further understand the development of hunting and communications patterns in different species if we were able to observe them, from that point of view it’s a good idea! Personally, as long as in the future the FSAI don’t find out they’ve been passing Woolly Mammoth steaks off as beef I’ve no problem with it at all…
For some reason I have a hard time believing those giant birds were real…
Oh, Moa and Elephant birds were real all right. Even more unbelievable is the fact that the Moa’s used to be preyed on by an eagle- the Haast’s eagle, the largest eagle to have ever existed. Sadly, that eagle also went extinct after it’s main food source, the Moa, were wiped out. Hopefully they’ll bring it back if they bring back the moa!
Moa= Kevin in UP! Hahaha
Exsqueeze me?! They wanna bring back Saber Toothed Tigers?! I’m not sure whether to be thrilled or completely terrified!
Is there a reason why so many of the animals in the list are from North America?
So let me see. Approximately 21,000 species go extinct every year. We are mostly not that worried about that, so we are going to spend millions to bring a few back? I’ve got a spoon and if I scoop fast enough I can save the Titanic? That’s like increasing spending and at the same time increasing borrowing and that’s just…………………………..oh nevermind!
the dodos weren’t eaten to extinction as there meat was “gross”. They went extinct because of animals humans brought to the island like pigs and rats
Maybe they can bring back all my brain cells that have gone extinct from drinking . . .
bring back one thing, then talk about bringing back more, kthanks.
What’s the other 2 hope there mire exciting than a duck
incredible…
i think a lot of people don’t really understand, this won’t likely happen in any of our lifetimes. they have to make viable live specimens to begin with which could take a very long time. that’s just the first part of the big picture, that in itself has many steps, including reconstructing full genomes. after they manage to make one that lives a full lifetime or is progressing to do just that, they may make a few more to study while they grow, that’s really imo the best part of the whole thing, it would take a very long time to actually reintroduce them and the main reason this is being done is probably for knowledge.
Any species humans played a major role in the extinction of deserves a second chance, surely the thylacine has to be number 1
Please bring back the dodo! I want to see how good they really tasted. Some of the other animals on the list look really cool, I’d love to see them at the zoo. They could be a great educational tool if they were brought back
It is said that when the wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, the aspen started growing back and the beavers started building their homes again. Not because these species have been extinct for thousands of years means that worse things will happen when they reoccupy their lost niches. Plus, the experts carefully considered facts before doing anything, otherwise the list won’t be narrowed down to 24.
I’d actually love to see Homo neanderthalensis and gastric-brooding frogs on the list.
They tried to bring back honest politicians, but could not find any DNA in existance
I’d also like to elbow for the Chinese Paddlefish. I don’t know of the most recent news, but the last time I read anything, expeditions failed to find any.
Cool.
life… finds a way…
Tynjk
Didn’t they learn anything from watching Jurassic Park?? Life finds a way. They’re taking species that had their chance and dropping them into a different century and they’ll defend themselves… violently if necessary (Dr Satler)
It’s part of Agenda 21 and the new world order. The “scientists” are just a propaganda cover-up.
25 sean lemass
Hopefully Mary Harney isnt one of them!
have your say