Slashdot Mirror
Should We Revive Extinct Species? (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
The last male northern white rhinoceros died just last week, and a total of just 29,000 rhinoceroses now remain on earth. But National Geographic reports that "the genetic material of several northern white rhinos has been stored away," and scientists hope to give birth to another using in vitro fertilization -- or to breed a hybrid using a genetically similar southern white rhino.
Meanwhile, a postdoctoral fellow in ecology and evolutionary biology reports that scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago. Thanks to the data I compiled as well as cutting-edge machine learning approaches to analyze those data, my colleagues and I were able to reconstruct the Carolina parakeets' likely range and climate niche, [which] turned out to be much smaller than previously believed... While this may seem rather minor, some scientists consider the Carolina parakeet one of the top candidates for 'de-extinction', a process in which DNA is harvested from specimens and used to "resurrect" extinct species... If someone were to spend millions of dollars doing all of the genetic and breeding work to bring back this species, or any other, how will they figure out where to release these birds...? Whether or not de-extinction is a worthwhile use of conservation effort and money is another question, best answered by someone other than me. But this is just an example of one potential use of this type of research. "
It seems like all kinds of havoc could ensue if we released a resurrected species back into the modern ecosystem. And yet Harvard researchers are already working to breed a new creature that's half-elephant, half Wooly Mammoth.
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should we revive extinct species?
Meanwhile, a postdoctoral fellow in ecology and evolutionary biology reports that scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago. Thanks to the data I compiled as well as cutting-edge machine learning approaches to analyze those data, my colleagues and I were able to reconstruct the Carolina parakeets' likely range and climate niche, [which] turned out to be much smaller than previously believed... While this may seem rather minor, some scientists consider the Carolina parakeet one of the top candidates for 'de-extinction', a process in which DNA is harvested from specimens and used to "resurrect" extinct species... If someone were to spend millions of dollars doing all of the genetic and breeding work to bring back this species, or any other, how will they figure out where to release these birds...? Whether or not de-extinction is a worthwhile use of conservation effort and money is another question, best answered by someone other than me. But this is just an example of one potential use of this type of research. "
It seems like all kinds of havoc could ensue if we released a resurrected species back into the modern ecosystem. And yet Harvard researchers are already working to breed a new creature that's half-elephant, half Wooly Mammoth.
What do Slashdot's readers think? Should we revive extinct species?
I want to shoot one.
If Man caused the extinction, then itâ(TM)s s moral duty to bring them back. If OTOH, they died from natural causes from nature, then probably not.
Yes, please... Let's start with the NES Classic.
No.
Qualifier: maybe if they taste good, we should consider it seriously...mammoth steak, mmmmmm....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Our ecosystem -the one we evolved in and adapted for - is rapidly being degraded. Artificial solutions can only go so far.
It's unfortunate that the business lobby/US Chamber of Commerce has done a great job in painting Environmentalists as a bunch of whack jobs who 'love animals but hate people' (Thanks to Wall Street, 1987), but the fact is that we ARE a part of nature and the environment. And as anyone who has to stay indoors during smog season will attest, technology only goes so far.
It's about preserving our way of life. That seemingly insignificant species could have a huge effect on us down the line.
Preserving species and the environment is about preserving us.
>> ...scientists are seriously considering the possibility of "de-extincting" the Carolina parakeet, America's only native parrot, which became extinct 100 years ago.
No it didn't. It was simply stunned, and pining for the fjords.
When the last cow goes extinct, will we try to revive the species?
Would doing so not be anti evolution? Surely those who believe evolution is more than just a theory would be happy to see the new species evolve and reviving old species can only interfere with this. Taking up space and resources after they have already been cast off by evolution.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
--PeterM
Didn't anyone pay attention to that documentary?
Jurassic Park?
Really?
Then obviously no. But if it was caused by human intervention like over hunting etc, then obviously yes.
Of course we should and it may be worth "any amount of money" if that answer the question ...
Having an actual more diverse world in the non-leftist way totally have a value and humans killed most of them in the first place.
Now if we talked people groups and culling away the mix-breeds then I could see how some would be upset. But then again .. not mixing shit up in the first place or even suggesting there's different people living in different places in the world upset those people too. (And supposedly it's very upsetting if some people on a pacific island had elected(?) the dad of Pippi Longstocking as their king but of course(?) totally fine to have a Muslim or black person as a representator in the Swedish parliament. Because double standards and hypocrisy and shit doesn't have to be logical, just, consistent or make any sense whatsoever.)
Might be nice if we made a decision, as a species, about whether we are a part of or separate from the earth's ecosystem.
This half-in/half-out status dooms both organisms.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Deposit some sludge on Mars and/or Titan, grab some popcorn, sit back, and let the Eukaryota do their work.
Honestly, humanity is probably going to go away. We should probably try to revive extinct species, if only to provide the necessary information for someone or something else to revive us. A practical strategy may then be to focus on mammals generally, primates specifically.
The Carolina parakeet is an excellent candidate for re-establishment -- a beautiful bird, driven to extinction by a foolish fashion that valued the tail feather.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah I know it's fiction, but so many things predicted first in fiction have come true, it's brought up with technologies all the time.
Trouble with the technology that allows us to do this, is that it has developed faster than our overall understanding and of all the potential consequences and implications of doing so, and that's never really a good combination. For all we do know about DNA there is so much more we still don't know or understand.
Unfortunately, this is one species that doesn't appear to be endangered.
Statesmen. Driven to extinction by politicans
I Want One!
Both Left and Right have them: The Evangelicals who think the world is 5,000 years old, and the Animists who believe that every species should be preserved, no matter the cost. Both sides refuse to acknowledge evolution. It is amusing to note how many of the self-righteous latter are so critical of the former.
People are just a bunch ignorant bastards. Seems cool or fun or taste good just do it.
Some excuses of ignorant lazy bastards to do nothing in their life and to prevent other people to do amazing things:
- Not well spend money, should spend it on whatevertheythinkisbetter
- Positioning themselves as having religious/moral/ethics high ground
- Precautionary Principle
- Too hard/Impossible
- Using irony to discredit the concept
I could really use some extra crispy dodo with the Colonel’s secret recipe right now.
In the name of Reciprocity! Our species might need extinction reversal someday..It's "a do unto others" thing...
Even when species get down to just a few (or few dozen) members, at that point, the role that creature plays in the ecosystem had functionally ended already, so it's sad we got there in the first place, but trying to save them does nothing for "the environment", it's just a poor attempt to mollify "human guilt"
Simple question, simple answer.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
In Venezuela, there used to be "Gavialiloids", but they went extint (Ikanogavialis and heserogavialis, for example).
These were relatives of the Gavialis in India and indonesia, but those are close to extintion (because of antropogenic factors in their habitats).
There are conservation efforts in ceratin zoos (San Diego in particular is very active in this conservation effort), but nothing in the wild.
Since the Gavialis is not a danger to humans (they mostly eat fish, their long narrow snouts are too fragile for bigger pray), it would be nice to re-introduce them in the wild in the former habitat of their cousins, specialy in areas where "bad fish" abound (think piranhas and electric eels - Electrophorus electricus)...
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Really? Like, for example?
As far as comparative effectiveness of funding, as a society we do all sorts of stupid misprioritization of funding all the time anyway; at least species revival can result in new scientific knowledge along the way.
If the species is not a threat to humans, why not?
What practical benefit is there? It would be tremendously interesting - like seeing a coelacanth swimming around, and knowing this thing has been unchanged for 400 million years.
The process of reviving an extinct species could advance science as well, so bonus there.
How do ya feel about smallpox?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
As much as diversity is important in ecosystems, reviving extinct species seems like an expensive and frivolous exercise if the environment isn't also somehow changed so that the species would this time survive and reach a stable population. What are the chances of that, with the concurrent mass extinction of so many other species during the Anthropocene?
If it turns out to be feasible, people with money will finance such activities. I suspect that it will turn out to be a fairly inexpensive activity, especially when compared with creating BFR's and the like.
In particular, Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. They both too young and they would be perfect to star in the next Star Wars movie.
I mean, sure, if they went extinct in the age of mammals and we can restore their habitat to them. Get a self-sustaining wild population going again.
However I'm pretty sure this won't happen. Instead we'll get a horrid Island of Dr. Moreau thing going. Reckless and ambitious scientists, technicians and wealthy people will create Mammaphants, Pig Men, DinoChickens, and SlothBears.
Also, it will be for show. You know, "look what I did, I created a DinoChicken," so it will be one-off creations. There won't be any attempt to get habitat for a formerly extinct species. All of which ignores the needs and quality of life for the poor resurrected individual animal.
Any learning connected to these efforts will have the same moral standing as vivisections and the Mengele experiments on Death Camp inmates. It will be permanently tainted, all of it.
If you try this, leave it to real scientists and not a bunch of flunky engisneer pukes. All they're good at is burning money and slipping deadlines; push for results and you're just as likely to get run over or crushed to death.
If the scientists need some technical help, best call some strapping young software developers, not some fat old mushy-brained engisneer dropouts.
We should do it because of what we would learn in the process.
You should only revive a species if you can supply it a habitat to live in.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Will the Harvard researchers creating the hybrid elephant/mammoth cause the school to use a new mascot, "The Wooly Bully?"
How much would you pay for a chunk of dodo meat..
it will depend how much the industry can make out of it.
being in a zoo like jurassic park is fun but the real money will be in the agribusiness.
thanks.
What am i, but stardust
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Should we revive the extinct insects as well? Keep a bunch of bees DNA, we surely will need some soon.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
you bred raptors
Dodos were eaten to extinction. They tasted so good they had to eat them all. Bring them back. I want me a dodo burger.
We should do it once and develop all the necessary technology. That way, when and if we NEED to de-extinct a species in the future, we can.
Before experimenting with DNA for 1-2 species, we should stop the mass extinctions in the first place.
aaaaaaa
As for the question of should one only has to consider the fossil record. If you do not learn how to bring the extinct back then the best you can hope is that someone somewhere stepped in the wrong sand pit and it currently leaving a really nice impression as they petrify.
I expect that once field ready PCR is available some kind of public Merkel tree of DNA codes should be assembled. (Insert DNAcoin cryptocurrency joke here.) Just the deltas need to be kept like in this "Git repository of code" the same way we do with human DNA records. It's a literal tree of life. Then the race is on to scan in everything you can before it dies.
After that it is just a matter of making tools that can turn the DNA back into living stuff. Now you have an instant backup of the planet's ecosystem, from bacteria and virii and molds to your neighbor Steve and his dog. Throw it in a can attached to a light sail. Stop worrying about the death of the Sun.
Start worrying about competing with other species that had the same idea and are about to show up on your doorstep.
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
You got people like this around you? Country’s full of ’em now. People walkin’ around all day long every minute of the day, worried about everything. Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens, worried about radon gas, worried about asbestos, worried about saving endangered species.
Lemme tell ya bout endangered species, alright? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature. It’s arrogant meddling. It’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature. Over 90 percent, over, way over 90 percent, of the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. Wooosh! They’re extinct. We didn’t kill them all. They just disappeared. That’s what nature does. They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day—and I mean regardless of our behaviour. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today will be gone tomorrow. Let them go gracefully. Leave Nature alone. Haven’t we done enough? We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s gonna save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned to care for one another—we’re gonna save the fuckin’ planet? I’m gettin’ tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. Tired.
George Carlin - Saving the planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
and restore it to its natural habitat, roaming the halls of power eating everything in a suit or golf shirt.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
But smarter people (like the ones who may have done the research necessary to use DNA from dead extinct animals to create new viable offsprings) should make up their mind about it based on careful ethical considerations. They should, of course, ignore slashdot and the even-dumber "public opinion" when doing it.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I'd like to see some of the 'giant' land animals reintroduced.
imagine giant sloths once again majestically striding across the land...
that support them, what's the point?
Fat, orange, racist, sexist baby boomers weâ(TM)re thought to be extinct. They live on in Donald.
A somewhat more timely issue that requires the same level of debate is
Should we terraform Mars?
The impacts on the rest of the solar system would be subtle yet possibly devastating. The answer to this question could have a profound effect on the stock markets and the future of video poker.
Isn't today April Fools day?
If we were responsible for their extinction and it happened relatively recently, yes.
why it went extinct, I think "reviving" any species is not a good idea and may have unknown consequences. And we're not likely to completely figure out the underlying reasons of an extinction. As someone said, if we don't correct the causes (and I don't know how we could do that if we don't completely know them), it will go extinct again anyway. And if we just do this out of sheer historical preservation and keep some species alive in artificial conditions, it's kind of perverse in a way. Living beings are not museum objects.
1) It's unlikely we'd be able to bring back enough individuals to avoid inbreeding and thus a population that would soon go extinct again.
You know neither how much genetic variation could be uncovered from extant specimens nor how much is necessary for survival.
Cheetahs are essentially clones and have survived extinction for 10K years since their last evolutionary bottleneck. Their genetic variation is consistent with a historical reduction in total population to a single pregnant individual.
2) It's likely that the reasons that it went extinct in the first place haven't been corrected.
They were deliberately exterminated.
3) It diverts resources from saving species that are on the verge of extinction, of which there are many. It's far easier to save something that is still alive than to bring it back.
Economics does not work that way. There is no basis for asserting that de-extinction would lessen support for preserving existing species. That is a fictional trade-off. While there must be a trade off between de-extinction funding and alternatives among total global expenditures, the combination of goods and services substituted for to fund de-extinction in their stead could by any: An orange spray-on tan, your girlfriend's birth control pills, a neighbor's Toyota Corolla, the next season of the Roseanne show.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It took me 4 paragraphs to realize, 'hey, this person is talking about gavials, which is a type of crocodile'.
Why is this story tagged with Silent Running? That wasn't about bringing back extinct species, but saving the ones we have.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Given the fact that humans hunted this species (generally speaking) into extinction then yes. That said there are other species which I feel should be let go of - those which died on their own.
Did it ever occur to anyone that they are extinct for a reason? It was like everyone thought it would be such a great idea bringing back the wolf to Yellowstone. There's a reason they were hunted to extinction in these parts. They are devastating the deer and elk populations and they kill just for fun. They are a nuisance and should be annihilated as they previously were before someone idiot had the stupid idea to bring them back.