Your answer is spot on. The way I see the project is that it could somehow bring people to think that we can somehow save species using technology. I don't like

Your answer is spot on. The way I see the project is that it could somehow bring people to think that we can somehow save species using technology. I don't like that much because it frames the conservation effort to a specific object whereas an animal doesn't disappear like that, it disappears because its environment can't support it anymore. Alors, regarding the negativity, and you can call me a totalitarian, I think much of the way we see things come from our education. So I think we can actually teach children to recognize the obviousness of healthy eating. That education of course is balanced by what you learn from society and also from the dreams projected by that society. For me reviving dead animals is a useless dream. As for environment protection, the question of being exciting is not there. It won't be exciting at all for the masses. But in the end, if nothing is done, it won't be exciting either. My idealist brain doesn't accept that but my pragmatic brain understands that we'd need some political/philsophical/sociological super powers to change that. One of those super power is propganda. We know it works (even if the examples from history are unfortunate). But then again, propaganda doesn't mean dictatorship, just look the level of communication we receive about covid. We'd need an Elon Musk that would build a project around crowd hacking instead of sending cars to space. That's what we usually get into the form of charismatic leaders. Maybe that's what we need (or maybe I'm biased by my own personality who ikes charismatic leaders :-))