4 ms·

Out of curiosity, does anyone know anyone else in real life that is not open to the idea of bringing back some extinct species? I noticed this recently. Not a

Out of curiosity, does anyone know anyone else in real life that is not open to the idea of bringing back some extinct species? I noticed this recently. Not a single person in my social network is against the idea of trying to clone a mammoth or trying to clone an extinct cat or dinosaur. There is some hesitancy when you bring up possibly reviving old bacteria, but that's it that I've noticed.

timClicks 11y ago
There is a little bit of a safety concern with some of the larger species of New Zealand moa. They're massive and New Zealanders currently don't really have anything that can harm them in the bush (e.g. no big cats, bears, snakes). One of the proponents of the project (http://bringbackmoa.org/ http://bringbackmoa.org/) has stated that he's not interested at de-extinction of the larger species (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10216641/Time-to-bring-back-the-moa http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10216641/Time-to-bring-back-...).
macspoofing 11y ago
>Not a single person in my social network is against the idea of trying to clone a mammoth or trying to clone an extinct cat or dinosaur. What are you going to do with them? Neither a T-Rex nor a Mammoth would do well in the wild and even if you put the issues of environmental difference between the distant past and today, you may be disrupting existing large fauna, which is already on the brink of extinction due to human activity. If that's not the case, you'll be left with the ethics of zoos and animal rights.
- 27182818284 11y ago
  >If that's not the case, you'll be left with the ethics of zoos and animal rights. This is kind of to my point. Nobody I know has raised objects like that, and animal rights is largely PR based anyway. (E.g., politicians eating baby elephant but social media upset about Cecil.) Nobody I've talked to has said something like, "We shouldn't do it for ethical reasons and they are..." which I find interesting and why I broached the topic.
- eruditely 11y ago
  Keep them in large cages and let us look at them.
asciimo 11y ago
Myself. It's interesting that so many people take it for granted that resurrecting extinct animals is a "good thing." Why is it a good thing? The referenced article doesn't ask this question. Ben Novak (the Passenger Pigeon researcher) said in an interview "... the destructive force of the flocks led to a radical rejuvenation of forests. Thick layers of pigeon droppings fertilized the soil, which soon led to new growth." Is new forest growth currently an issue? Are Passenger Pigeon droppings the only solution? http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/scientists-aim-to-bring-the-passenger-pigeon-back-from-extinction-a-893744.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/scientists-aim...
- sehugg 11y ago
  One could also ask the question of whether humans need to behave in such a way as to bring about the extinction of so many species. Certainly the passenger pigeon wasn't made extinct for the common good. Biodiversity is the only answer we have right now to the question of how to maintain a healthy planet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Services_enhanced_by_biodiversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Services_enhanced...). Until we get a lot smarter, it's wise to learn how to better preserve as much as we can.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  How would you feel about cloning endangered species compared to resurrecting extinct species? Endangered species are still part of ecosystem, so you avoid some of the problems or arguments around introducing new, invasive species.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Siberian landscapes suffer much from not having mammoths, sabertooth tigers and wooly rhinos. Half of Siberia could be productive arctic steppe instead of grim forest we see today (we don't because there's no business being there). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park
6502nerdface 11y ago
I think I agree with you that on balance it's not an obviously wise thing to do. But for fun, I tried to think of some arguments in favor of resurrecting extinct species: - (Karma) Humans have been the proximate cause of so many extinctions, and this is a chance to "undo" some of that harm. - (Glory) Life seeks life. What could be more glorious and good than to finally apply the knowledge and art so painfully accumulated by the the hundred suffering generations before us to a real conquest of death? - (Knowledge) Merely by attempting to resurrect an extinct species, we would learn so much. And if we ever succeeded, it's likely that the things we could learn by observing extinct phenotypes and extinct phenotype-genotype mappings would make for a true revolution in the life sciences.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  (Biology) restores some bio-diversity to the planet. (Cuisine) If passenger pigeons became commonplace again, we could eat them. Regarding your point about knowledge: totally agree. If we could coax extinct life forms back into existence, think of the likely medical implications. Regenerating limbs, repairing brain damage, curing MS and ALS and a host of other genetic problems. People like this science writer keep saying "We might be able to, but should we?" Of course we should. The opportunity costs of not doing it are potentially enormous.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Certainly we wouldn't want to bring back passenger pigeons in anything like their former numbers -- they would devastate grain crops like a swarm of locusts. Come to think of it the Rocky Mountain locust is also extinct (the reason for this is unclear, but some believe it was due to farmer's plows uncovering their buried eggs and exposing them to predation). There's a species we don't want back, for sure. Edit: "North American locust" -> "Rocky Mountain locust". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust
    - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
      Interesting. I guess we don't want to bring back the Rocky Mountain locust. On the other hand, according to that Wiki article, they may not actually be extinct, just morphed into some other form of grasshopper. Presumably there'd be predators (hawks, falcons, owls, eagles, snakes and other nest invaders, humans with shotguns) that would keep down the pigeon population. But, maybe not. Still, we need to try :)
Dylan16807 11y ago
Well there's not a huge variety of species we can actually bring back. DNA doesn't last all that long. So nobody has to worry about the implications of dinosaurs. All-in-all it's a pretty minor thing.
michaelpinto 11y ago
It could be argued that our limited resources should go into preventing existing species from going extinct (and saving their ecosystems) rather than bringing back ones that are gone. And given the crisis situation we're in it's not an academic question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/the-earth-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction-scientists-say-and-its-humans-fault/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22...

timClicks 11y ago

There is a little bit of a safety concern with some of the larger species of New Zealand moa. They're massive and New Zealanders currently don't really have anything that can harm them in the bush (e.g. no big cats, bears, snakes). One of the proponents of the project (http://bringbackmoa.org/ http://bringbackmoa.org/) has stated that he's not interested at de-extinction of the larger species (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10216641/Time-to-bring-back-the-moa http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10216641/Time-to-bring-back-...).

macspoofing 11y ago

>Not a single person in my social network is against the idea of trying to clone a mammoth or trying to clone an extinct cat or dinosaur. What are you going to do with them? Neither a T-Rex nor a Mammoth would do well in the wild and even if you put the issues of environmental difference between the distant past and today, you may be disrupting existing large fauna, which is already on the brink of extinction due to human activity. If that's not the case, you'll be left with the ethics of zoos and animal rights.

27182818284 11y ago
>If that's not the case, you'll be left with the ethics of zoos and animal rights. This is kind of to my point. Nobody I know has raised objects like that, and animal rights is largely PR based anyway. (E.g., politicians eating baby elephant but social media upset about Cecil.) Nobody I've talked to has said something like, "We shouldn't do it for ethical reasons and they are..." which I find interesting and why I broached the topic.
eruditely 11y ago
Keep them in large cages and let us look at them.

asciimo 11y ago

Myself. It's interesting that so many people take it for granted that resurrecting extinct animals is a "good thing." Why is it a good thing? The referenced article doesn't ask this question. Ben Novak (the Passenger Pigeon researcher) said in an interview "... the destructive force of the flocks led to a radical rejuvenation of forests. Thick layers of pigeon droppings fertilized the soil, which soon led to new growth." Is new forest growth currently an issue? Are Passenger Pigeon droppings the only solution? http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/scientists-aim-to-bring-the-passenger-pigeon-back-from-extinction-a-893744.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/scientists-aim...

sehugg 11y ago
One could also ask the question of whether humans need to behave in such a way as to bring about the extinction of so many species. Certainly the passenger pigeon wasn't made extinct for the common good. Biodiversity is the only answer we have right now to the question of how to maintain a healthy planet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Services_enhanced_by_biodiversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Services_enhanced...). Until we get a lot smarter, it's wise to learn how to better preserve as much as we can.
cpeterso 11y ago
How would you feel about cloning endangered species compared to resurrecting extinct species? Endangered species are still part of ecosystem, so you avoid some of the problems or arguments around introducing new, invasive species.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Siberian landscapes suffer much from not having mammoths, sabertooth tigers and wooly rhinos. Half of Siberia could be productive arctic steppe instead of grim forest we see today (we don't because there's no business being there). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park

6502nerdface 11y ago

I think I agree with you that on balance it's not an obviously wise thing to do. But for fun, I tried to think of some arguments in favor of resurrecting extinct species: - (Karma) Humans have been the proximate cause of so many extinctions, and this is a chance to "undo" some of that harm. - (Glory) Life seeks life. What could be more glorious and good than to finally apply the knowledge and art so painfully accumulated by the the hundred suffering generations before us to a real conquest of death? - (Knowledge) Merely by attempting to resurrect an extinct species, we would learn so much. And if we ever succeeded, it's likely that the things we could learn by observing extinct phenotypes and extinct phenotype-genotype mappings would make for a true revolution in the life sciences.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
(Biology) restores some bio-diversity to the planet. (Cuisine) If passenger pigeons became commonplace again, we could eat them. Regarding your point about knowledge: totally agree. If we could coax extinct life forms back into existence, think of the likely medical implications. Regenerating limbs, repairing brain damage, curing MS and ALS and a host of other genetic problems. People like this science writer keep saying "We might be able to, but should we?" Of course we should. The opportunity costs of not doing it are potentially enormous.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Certainly we wouldn't want to bring back passenger pigeons in anything like their former numbers -- they would devastate grain crops like a swarm of locusts. Come to think of it the Rocky Mountain locust is also extinct (the reason for this is unclear, but some believe it was due to farmer's plows uncovering their buried eggs and exposing them to predation). There's a species we don't want back, for sure. Edit: "North American locust" -> "Rocky Mountain locust". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Interesting. I guess we don't want to bring back the Rocky Mountain locust. On the other hand, according to that Wiki article, they may not actually be extinct, just morphed into some other form of grasshopper. Presumably there'd be predators (hawks, falcons, owls, eagles, snakes and other nest invaders, humans with shotguns) that would keep down the pigeon population. But, maybe not. Still, we need to try :)

Dylan16807 11y ago

Well there's not a huge variety of species we can actually bring back. DNA doesn't last all that long. So nobody has to worry about the implications of dinosaurs. All-in-all it's a pretty minor thing.

michaelpinto 11y ago

It could be argued that our limited resources should go into preventing existing species from going extinct (and saving their ecosystems) rather than bringing back ones that are gone. And given the crisis situation we're in it's not an academic question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/the-earth-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction-scientists-say-and-its-humans-fault/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22...