Slashdot Mirror
The Mammoth Cometh: Revive & Restore Tackles De-Extinction
theodp writes "Slashdot's been following de-extinction efforts for a good 15 years. Now, in The Mammoth Cometh, this week's NY Times Magazine cover story, Nathaniel Rich writes that 'bringing extinct animals back to life is really happening — and it's going to be very, very cool. Unless it ends up being very, very bad.' Among the 'genetic rescues' being pursued by The Long Now Foundation's Revive & Restore project is The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback. And returning a flock of passenger pigeons to the planet is just the tip of the iceberg. 'We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic,' says Stewart Brand. 'One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success.' De-extinction, while no doubt thrilling ('It would certainly be cool to see a living saber-toothed cat,' Stanford's Hank Greely and Jacob Sherkow argued in Science), is disturbing to many conservation biologists who question the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared, worry about disease, and are concerned that money may be diverted from other conservation efforts."
just buy an costa rica island to put them on
will no doubt be thrilling (although I would personally prefer seeing a return of packs of dire wolves) unless you are out for a hike. They will certainly be one more nail in the coffin of gun control.
It's too bad you think she's annoying, because in the meantime she grew up, and is really beautiful and seemingly really smart and interesting.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."
Don't fear the penguins
Some of the arguments against "de-extinction" (there's got to be a better term) puzzle me.
"Why go through all the trouble just to have the animal go extinct all over again?" First, perhaps we're now in a position to avoid the stupid actions that drove extinction the first time -- in the case of the passenger pigeon, and perhaps even the mammoth, over-hunting. Second, this argument would seem to apply equally to species that aren't extinct at all, but merely endangered. Whey go to any arbitrary amount of effort to protect a species, when it's likely to go extinct (eventually) no matter what we do?
"It's likely to become a new disease vector." This happens all the time anyhow. As the article points out, restoring a species that competes with current "pest" species (rodents and deer) may well reduce transmission of diseases like Lyme that are currently increasing.
I'd like to see some discussion that focuses on the differences between "de-extinction" and restoration of endangered-but-not-quite-extinct species. I'd also like to see some discussion about efforts like the American Chestnut Foundation, which is working to undo the profound damage from the early-20th-century arrival of chestnut blight in the US. Our forests have adapted to the loss of the chestnut, and its re-introduction would surely cause another ecological upheaval. Does anyone see this as a dangerous undertaking? If not, why not?
I'll get the mop.
I can't see this working out well. Probably only a small number of individuals could be resurrected, simply because of lack of good DNA samples, and I bet a lot of errors would be introduced in de-extinction given current tech.
Genetic diversity, therefore, in the de-extinct species would be incredibly poor and any second generation would likely be rather sickly and not resistant to diseases. Either that or a continuous and very difficult (impossible?) genetic engineering effort would have to be involved in restoring genetic diversity to the species.
Second, all of a species isn't exactly captured in just the DNA. DNA only gets expressed properly in the right cellular environment, it's a 'chicken and egg' problem. If you don't have a chicken egg, how do you raise a chicken with just the DNA and some other egg? Your other egg may not provide the right environment for correct genetic expression and you may end up with some sort of chimera of dubious viability and authenticity. Incompatible mitochondria are an obvious issue.
Third, given the first two, your de-extinct species is likely to simply go extinct again unless you correct the environmental issues that led to the first extinction. And given the rate at which we're screwing up the planet, is that really realistic?
I think it'd actually be better to devote resources to discovering and preserving as much as possible of DNA and related structures for future de-extinction attempts when technology is better and we've learned better planetary management.
--PeterM
Hunters and fishers hate it when people destroy natural habitats with tract housing or businesses poison rivers. Sustainable hunting and fishing and conservation of our natural resources means that future generations will be able to enjoy the same connection to nature that we have found.
The idea of stewardship is very important to hunters, but to some environmentalists it has a negative reaction.
Personally I can't wait for orders taken for 'em.
They say they tasted great.
Second, all of a species isn't exactly captured in just the DNA. DNA only gets expressed properly in the right cellular environment, it's a 'chicken and egg' problem.
I asked this question myself and the answer I got was that the first generation wouldn't be genetically pure, but through selective breeding of the first generation down a couple of more generations you will have a pure genetic animal. Similar to how they destroy mice that have been cultured with partial human DNA (growing a human ear on their back, for science!), it is possible if you let them breed you will get something human.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
All the more reason to perfect this technique. If we can routinely take samples from species for future revival we can ensure their survival forever.
And please nobody say this will become an excuse for not caring about species going extinct, would you rather they go extinct anyway and vanish forever? Think about it, no one actually interested in conservation is going to argue against means to preserve species like this.
"Broke into the wrong God damn rec room, didn't ya you bastard!"
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The problem as I see it for mass adoption of such a diet is that people these days think meat comes in packages in the store. There's been a complete disconnect between what meat is and what it comes from. I suspect such an effort wouldn't get very far -- as soon as urban people saw meat that .. you know .. really looked like an animal, the would be a huge hue and cry, and there'd be huge pressure to go back to eating faceless meat that came from factories.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Mammoths never existed, GOD just put those bones and fossils there because he like to fuck with you.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
The nice thing about mammoths is they are found all the time, in pristine condition, so well-preserved in ice that they're still edible (for a lot of money per steak)...some of the endeavors with them include research on the viability of eggs and sperm from them, though the likelihood is that a modified elephant egg (using parts from a mammoth's if possible--radically simplifying 'a bit') is to be the recipient of factors for fertilization...and then another and another and another for a long time.
If folks have been smart, they've been capturing good samples of DNA for mammoths for quite a while now. No word on whether that's what's been happening, though.
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
We're not even in a position to prevent the current ongoing extinctions.
So we're not in a position to set aside land for the species at risk? We're not in a position to reduce or regulate human activities that could harm the viability of this species? We're not in a position to fight invasive species that might be competing with or preying upon the endangered species? I disagree. I think we're in a position to do all these things, if we think they are worthy enough.
It's a more interesting way for us humans to spend money than making a new 'Candy Crush' app, too.
Interestingly the current thinking seems to be that they probably went extinct when some climate change meant they couldn't find a few varieties of herbs they needed to complement their diet, and they basically went down due to malnutrition.
Which is a problem we could fix.