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?
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"
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
Of course he is for returning the Wooly Mammoth, that thing must have had the most delicious meat in history.
Also we must bring back Hitler too, because it seems people have forgotten what Nazis are as they are flinging that term left and right and trying to stick it everywhere and anywhere like apes flinging turds.
If you believed in Evolution ...
Evolution is a scientific concept, not a religion. I accept that evolution is the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life, but I don't have "faith" that it can miraculously solve any problem or that we need to be "loyal" to natural selection by not intervening.
and humans killed most of them in the first place.
Humans definitely did not kill most of the species that have gone extinct. Going extinct is the natural way of things, unless you're a creationist and don't believe in evolution or something like that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If Man caused the extinction, then itâ(TM)s s moral duty to bring them back.
Great! Let's start with pubic lice and smallpox.
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!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?