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.
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"
>> ...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.
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?
If Man caused the extinction, then it's[sic] a moral duty to bring them back
That makes no sense. We have no moral obligation to nature, or to extinct species. "Nature" doesn't care if those species are around or not. Nature is not suffering without them, and neither are those creatures.
If someone wants to bring them back, we should make sure they won't cause any problems. And if they won't cause any problems, then go ahead. It would be a great zoo!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
"Man has the ability to reason."
Have you met us?
That makes no sense. We have no moral obligation to nature, or to extinct species. "Nature" doesn't care if those species are around or not. Nature is not suffering without them, and neither are those creatures.
Ah, the utilitarian perspective. Well that's true as long as you say "nature" = ~forces of nature well then they also don't care whether humanity or even life itself survives. If we're wiped out by an Armageddon-size asteroid today, though shit. The universe goes on. With luck even Earth goes on with cockroaches instead of people, or if not we go the way of the dinosaurs and the dodo bird.
Really when they say nature most people mean a proxy of humanity. We should support the biodiversity of Earth because it supports us in more ways than domesticated crops and farm animals. I'm not sure what saving a few endangered pandas will bring. But I'm pretty sure it's more than hunting them to extinction. Though if you're looking for a formal proof of what we haven't discovered/learned so far I don't have it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I couldn't help myself, when I saw the incorrect usage of â(TM) I had to say something
. Haven't you looked up the proper usage of â(TM) in Strunk and White's Elements of Style? They have some rather scathing things to say about such poignant punctuation propriety pilferage.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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."
That's just moral relativism. Without some kind of predetermined moral code (generally attributed to deit(y/ies), debating morals is no better than debating which color is best.
What you call "moral relativism" is the only kind of morality there is. If your idea of morality is unquestioningly following the dictates of your invisible friend - or of anyone else, for that matter - then you're not talking about morality, you're taking about obedience. Those are two very different things.
What, you really think humans are not a part of nature?
We're just another animal, really. A bit more successful than most primates, but just another animal (for which read: a part of nature like any other)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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!
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?
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.
If we are just another critter, then there is no difference than a human making a nuke power plant and a beaver making a beaver dam. (And 'nature' made it's own nuke plant somewhere in Africa, I believe--too lazy to look up the location)
As much so as a bower bird nest.
Actually, fission piles can occur even without the intervention of biology, so they're about as natural as rocks.
No, that's ethics, the theory why morality is the way it is. Morality is a time honed collection of shortcuts for ethical decisions, which allows us to actually get things done without too much hassle. Sometimes, morality reaches its limits, and then it's time to get back to ethics and find out why moral rules were once set the way they are, and how to adapt them to the current problem.
The American bison isn't extinct. They successfully evolved into tasty farm animals, and there are many near my home town. They weren't as successful as the cow, but they've found a niche. Many other North American megafauna did not, but most of those were eliminated by clever primates with sharp sticks and rocks, not guns.
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
I beg to differ. Ethics are the philosophy of morality (philosophia moralis). That's how Cicero once translated the greek term "ethike", literally meaning habit or custom.