9 ms·

Reviving extinct species may soon be possible

43 points by edward 5y ago

digitcatphd 5y ago
But why? Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again.
- TheParkShark 5y ago
  The ones they’re trying it on aren’t fully extinct yet. Only the male line is, two females are alive. It can also lead to science that could possibly help bee’s, fish, bugs, and countless other life forms that we’re about to wipe out.
- trainsplanes 5y ago
  I think it's good technology to have just in case. For example, if humanity does something dumb that accidentally makes bees or whales go extinct, having an undo to bring back keystone species that entire ecosystems depend on is pretty nice.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Except it's likely the cause of the extinction will still be present and make reintroduction nearly impossible.
- abraae 5y ago
  You're assuming there is ecological balance In my country, idiotic victorians introduced several predator species (stoats, weasels etc.) back around the turn of the last century - a mere blink of the eye ago in ecological time. Since then, these species are steadily killing off our native birds species. Balance has not yet been reached, if by that we mean the extinction of those remaining species. Many very committed people work very hard on removing the introduced predators, and restoring the conditions that allowed the native species to thrive. I think we'll win, because technology.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again. It is a little aggressive, but I like the case you imply for using CRISPR gene drives to wipe out invasive species. Just getting rats out of New Zealand would be a tremendous win.
mc32 5y ago
This is a nice option to have of course. What kid hasn’t imagined mammoths or saber toothed tigers, or Tasmanian tigers and dodo birds (I’m putting dinosaurs aside because they are tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years older) But, while good for the imagination, where would we put them? Their ecosystems don’t exist. If they did, people are encroaching on them... So that leaves curiosities at the zoo (or special once extinct species travel destination). Is that what we want? And what about Neanderthals, do we bring them back? Being near human what are the ethics of that? That leaves a safety valve for species going extinct. This would be a good use. But it can have the effect of people caring less (don’t worry, we can bring them back if we have to) On the other hand... this and space travel....
- edgyquant 5y ago
  In regards to Neanderthals, I think until such a time people can stop being bigoted towards each other we shouldn’t be reviving an actual different species (as close they are to us.)
- vimacs2 5y ago
  We would likely have to generate such ecosystems for ourselves, probably in giant rotating space habitats which can be enclosed off from invasive species and poachers. So, to put it lightly, probably a few centuries off. We have never even made a truly self sufficient closed ecosystem on Earth, our knowledge of such complex systems is far too infantile.
  - VRay 5y ago
    People make enclosed ecosystems in jars all the time for fun
    - vimacs2 5y ago
      I should have clarified that I mean large self enclosed ecosystems, as in bigger than a jar. Something that can sustain multiple larger animals is to put it lightly - a major challenge. The mess that was Biosphere 2 should be a testemant to that.
TheParkShark 5y ago
I saw this movie when I was younger. It was entertaining as a viewer but I doubt the participants enjoyed it as thoroughly. This is a really interesting field that often gets overlooked. I’m very excited about the future with species saving technology.
- svachalek 5y ago
  Life, uh, finds a way.
giantg2 5y ago
But is it practical and prudent?
marricks 5y ago
Some comments are mentioning the utility but I'd like to offer another opinion: until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet rather than short term gains I'm not sure we should be trusted with such a power. There are so many helpful things we could do for our planet which aren't even truly disruptive to our economies which we neglect to do for either inertia sake or the profit of existing archaic industries... Take for example ditching most of our usage of fossil fuels, we have nuclear and other technologies but it would be greatly destabilizing to economies dependent on selling oil. Considering the environmental catastrophe we already face and will face from global warming it's no brainer! What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. Check out sales in Alaska and Canada. In short, what would this be used for? I imagine what ever seems entertaining and marketable which will just get us further from saving ourselves and the planet...
- bakatubas 5y ago
  > In short, what would this be used for? A stepping stone to inventing new species, or augmenting humans with super-human powers… duh!
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  ... or perhaps do something about Climate Change? The problem is that we don't get to make choices as a world or even as a species about what is overall best. As a race, we often devolve to individuals doing what seems best at the moment... much like the last of a pair of birds being brought together to mate.
- tyingq 5y ago
  >what ever seems entertaining and marketable Sadly, I think you're right. My first thought was that it would turn into exotic designer dogs and cats.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  > What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. The price of lumber (i.e. a manufactured product) saw increased prices. The price for the “raw” logs has remained relatively stable. Lastly have there been any serious plans to rollback forestry protections since the change of administration?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spodek 5y ago
The first words of the first link returned searching on "what is extinction rate" says > Life on Earth is under pressure > By the end of the century, half of all species could be facing extinction. The rate of species extinction is up to 10,000 times higher than the natural, historical rate. Nobody loves and values science more than I do, and people are free to work on what they want, but the greater need seems to be stopping our causing extinctions. Restoring one or two while losing millions doesn't seem a good trade.
motohagiography 5y ago
Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy) might be able to contribute if we brought them back, no?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Deliciousness seems like one answer.
  - Normille 5y ago
    Tongue in cheek maybe. But I've thought before how being 'useful' to the dominant species on the planet [whether that means tasting nice or just being a cute furry companion] could be perceived as a legitimate and highly efficient evolutionary strategy, without all the hard work of actually 'evolving'. I think it's inevitable that, when the human race does start colonising other worlds [however far off in the distant future] we'll take our cats and dogs etc. with us. Those creatures will effectively have secured the benefits of all our centuries of technological advances and [with us] escaped this "all eggs in one fragile planetary basket" trap, without even having had to go so far as experimentally banging a few rocks together to see how things might develop from there. [Mind you, with the advent of lab grown meat, it might turn out that the dogs, cats, etc played a better hand than the chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, etc did. Being cute is more likely to get you a lift off-planet in the distant future, than being delicious]
- awb 5y ago
  There’s a lot of luck in life too. The timing of a natural disaster or biological disease or being around when humans evolved contributes a fair amount. It’s not just genetics that determines survival.
- timClicks 5y ago
  Actually, it's sort of the opposite. The few dozen animal species that have been farmed and domesticated are quite prolific. Regardless, blaming a species for habitat loss due to forest clearing, for example, feels slightly misdirected to me.
Timothycquinn 5y ago
Does anyone have a non-paywalled sources for this article?
- supersour 5y ago
  https://archive.is/20X26 https://archive.is/20X26
tgbugs 5y ago
It doesn't matter if you can restore a cellular lineage if the only environment that the organism can exist in has been wiped from the face of the Earth. Until we can restore balance to whole ecosystem we will never be masters of nature.
- tremon 5y ago
  But restoring balance to a whole ecosystem may require reintroducing extinct species. If's obviously not sufficient, but in some cases it may be required.
coenhyde 5y ago
If we have the ability, IMO we should bring back any species that humanity has made extinct in recent times, say 150 years without any hesitation (assuming we can do it safely). And I think it is our moral obligation to do so. We have been the the arbiter of whether these species lived or died, and we chose death. We have an opportunity to choose again, and we'd be royal a-holes if we choose death again. Then I think we should consider bringing back species we wiped out eons ago (eg mammoth), if their ecosystem still exists.
- prawn 5y ago
  I think generally the problem is going to come down to "if their ecosystem still exists". We're wiping out the places these creatures lived. Not just the big-name places, but the unremarkable ones. Same goes with the animals. For every name-species gone, there'd be dozens to which the public is oblivious.
  - cduzz 5y ago
    The reverse of that is that there are ecosystems that can only exist as a result of some large fauna's action on the environment: There are theories that permafrost is a result of woolly mammoths, for instance: https://theconversation.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help-stop-arctic-emissions-95956 https://theconversation.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help... or Horses / donkeys digging wells in deserts: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wild-donkeys-and-horses-dig-wells-provide-water-host-desert-species-180977627/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wild-donkeys-and-h... (edited to add horses)
    - prawn 5y ago
      That's interesting. If something wants to live up in Siberia and Canada, more power to it. I think the climate will unlock little more than mosquitoes up there to start with! Just not instinctively loving the idea of rebirthing name-species for a bit of glory rather than working against what we're generally doing to the environment. Makes for a public excuse for our actions. My MIL has been working the last few years to remove cows from their property and reforest the hillside. The transformation is amazing - it's gone from just beaten grass and cow crap, to loads of native trees. Eventually the trees will be home to mammals and birdlife, dropped logs for lizards, etc. Long way off regrowing the century-old gum trees that really make this area special though.
BrissyCoder 5y ago
Looking forward to bringing back the mighty Moa (12ft tall flightless bird) and having it replace the (rather lame imo) Kiwi as NZ's national animal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
- timClicks 5y ago
  I think only the little bush moa is sequenced. I don't think that medium to large moa species will make a comeback any time soon.
  - BrissyCoder 5y ago
    Slightly larger than a Turkey. Looks delicious still.
- cdstyh 5y ago
  I'm more interested in bringing back giant bugs from the carboniferous period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropleura https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropleura I have also thought about selectively breeding bugs in a high oxygen environment. We have made major changes to dogs and livestock through selective breeding. I'm sure we could make some giant bugs too.
geocrasher 5y ago
I wonder: Is a knowledge of Unix like systems is as important as I think it is?
- danparsonson 5y ago
  Don't worry, they're pretty easy to use - one might even describe them as 'childsplay'
GoalooUS 5y ago
looking forward to it, cause I want to know what they look like
headsoup 5y ago
I think this only leads to perverse outcomes, in principle the (further) reduced incentives to keep things from going extinct in the first place. There also needs to be a lot of consideration in reintroducing a species and how it fits into the ecosystem.
jonplackett 5y ago
The paywall ends this article on a real downer! > The male was caught in September 2004. He was old, had only one eye and died a few weeks later. The other two birds were spotted around the same time, then never seen again. THE END
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
How about ones we have already brought back? This recent article springs to mind: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78601/these-40-000-year-old-frozen-worms-just-came-back-to-life/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78601/these-40-000-year-old-f...
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  Does this validate cryogenic freezing?

43 points by edward 5y ago

But why? Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again.

TheParkShark 5y ago
The ones they’re trying it on aren’t fully extinct yet. Only the male line is, two females are alive. It can also lead to science that could possibly help bee’s, fish, bugs, and countless other life forms that we’re about to wipe out.
trainsplanes 5y ago
I think it's good technology to have just in case. For example, if humanity does something dumb that accidentally makes bees or whales go extinct, having an undo to bring back keystone species that entire ecosystems depend on is pretty nice.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Except it's likely the cause of the extinction will still be present and make reintroduction nearly impossible.
abraae 5y ago
You're assuming there is ecological balance In my country, idiotic victorians introduced several predator species (stoats, weasels etc.) back around the turn of the last century - a mere blink of the eye ago in ecological time. Since then, these species are steadily killing off our native birds species. Balance has not yet been reached, if by that we mean the extinction of those remaining species. Many very committed people work very hard on removing the introduced predators, and restoring the conditions that allowed the native species to thrive. I think we'll win, because technology.
mullingitover 5y ago
> Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again. It is a little aggressive, but I like the case you imply for using CRISPR gene drives to wipe out invasive species. Just getting rats out of New Zealand would be a tremendous win.

mc32 5y ago

This is a nice option to have of course. What kid hasn’t imagined mammoths or saber toothed tigers, or Tasmanian tigers and dodo birds (I’m putting dinosaurs aside because they are tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years older) But, while good for the imagination, where would we put them? Their ecosystems don’t exist. If they did, people are encroaching on them... So that leaves curiosities at the zoo (or special once extinct species travel destination). Is that what we want? And what about Neanderthals, do we bring them back? Being near human what are the ethics of that? That leaves a safety valve for species going extinct. This would be a good use. But it can have the effect of people caring less (don’t worry, we can bring them back if we have to) On the other hand... this and space travel....

edgyquant 5y ago
In regards to Neanderthals, I think until such a time people can stop being bigoted towards each other we shouldn’t be reviving an actual different species (as close they are to us.)
vimacs2 5y ago
We would likely have to generate such ecosystems for ourselves, probably in giant rotating space habitats which can be enclosed off from invasive species and poachers. So, to put it lightly, probably a few centuries off. We have never even made a truly self sufficient closed ecosystem on Earth, our knowledge of such complex systems is far too infantile.
- VRay 5y ago
  People make enclosed ecosystems in jars all the time for fun
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    I should have clarified that I mean large self enclosed ecosystems, as in bigger than a jar. Something that can sustain multiple larger animals is to put it lightly - a major challenge. The mess that was Biosphere 2 should be a testemant to that.

TheParkShark 5y ago

I saw this movie when I was younger. It was entertaining as a viewer but I doubt the participants enjoyed it as thoroughly. This is a really interesting field that often gets overlooked. I’m very excited about the future with species saving technology.

svachalek 5y ago
Life, uh, finds a way.

giantg2 5y ago

But is it practical and prudent?

marricks 5y ago

Some comments are mentioning the utility but I'd like to offer another opinion: until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet rather than short term gains I'm not sure we should be trusted with such a power. There are so many helpful things we could do for our planet which aren't even truly disruptive to our economies which we neglect to do for either inertia sake or the profit of existing archaic industries... Take for example ditching most of our usage of fossil fuels, we have nuclear and other technologies but it would be greatly destabilizing to economies dependent on selling oil. Considering the environmental catastrophe we already face and will face from global warming it's no brainer! What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. Check out sales in Alaska and Canada. In short, what would this be used for? I imagine what ever seems entertaining and marketable which will just get us further from saving ourselves and the planet...

bakatubas 5y ago
> In short, what would this be used for? A stepping stone to inventing new species, or augmenting humans with super-human powers… duh!
imoverclocked 5y ago
... or perhaps do something about Climate Change? The problem is that we don't get to make choices as a world or even as a species about what is overall best. As a race, we often devolve to individuals doing what seems best at the moment... much like the last of a pair of birds being brought together to mate.
tyingq 5y ago
>what ever seems entertaining and marketable Sadly, I think you're right. My first thought was that it would turn into exotic designer dogs and cats.
jdavis703 5y ago
> What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. The price of lumber (i.e. a manufactured product) saw increased prices. The price for the “raw” logs has remained relatively stable. Lastly have there been any serious plans to rollback forestry protections since the change of administration?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spodek 5y ago

The first words of the first link returned searching on "what is extinction rate" says > Life on Earth is under pressure > By the end of the century, half of all species could be facing extinction. The rate of species extinction is up to 10,000 times higher than the natural, historical rate. Nobody loves and values science more than I do, and people are free to work on what they want, but the greater need seems to be stopping our causing extinctions. Restoring one or two while losing millions doesn't seem a good trade.

motohagiography 5y ago

Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy) might be able to contribute if we brought them back, no?

LatteLazy 5y ago
Deliciousness seems like one answer.
- Normille 5y ago
  Tongue in cheek maybe. But I've thought before how being 'useful' to the dominant species on the planet [whether that means tasting nice or just being a cute furry companion] could be perceived as a legitimate and highly efficient evolutionary strategy, without all the hard work of actually 'evolving'. I think it's inevitable that, when the human race does start colonising other worlds [however far off in the distant future] we'll take our cats and dogs etc. with us. Those creatures will effectively have secured the benefits of all our centuries of technological advances and [with us] escaped this "all eggs in one fragile planetary basket" trap, without even having had to go so far as experimentally banging a few rocks together to see how things might develop from there. [Mind you, with the advent of lab grown meat, it might turn out that the dogs, cats, etc played a better hand than the chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, etc did. Being cute is more likely to get you a lift off-planet in the distant future, than being delicious]
awb 5y ago
There’s a lot of luck in life too. The timing of a natural disaster or biological disease or being around when humans evolved contributes a fair amount. It’s not just genetics that determines survival.
timClicks 5y ago
Actually, it's sort of the opposite. The few dozen animal species that have been farmed and domesticated are quite prolific. Regardless, blaming a species for habitat loss due to forest clearing, for example, feels slightly misdirected to me.

Timothycquinn 5y ago

Does anyone have a non-paywalled sources for this article?

supersour 5y ago
https://archive.is/20X26 https://archive.is/20X26

tgbugs 5y ago

It doesn't matter if you can restore a cellular lineage if the only environment that the organism can exist in has been wiped from the face of the Earth. Until we can restore balance to whole ecosystem we will never be masters of nature.

tremon 5y ago
But restoring balance to a whole ecosystem may require reintroducing extinct species. If's obviously not sufficient, but in some cases it may be required.

coenhyde 5y ago

If we have the ability, IMO we should bring back any species that humanity has made extinct in recent times, say 150 years without any hesitation (assuming we can do it safely). And I think it is our moral obligation to do so. We have been the the arbiter of whether these species lived or died, and we chose death. We have an opportunity to choose again, and we'd be royal a-holes if we choose death again. Then I think we should consider bringing back species we wiped out eons ago (eg mammoth), if their ecosystem still exists.

prawn 5y ago
I think generally the problem is going to come down to "if their ecosystem still exists". We're wiping out the places these creatures lived. Not just the big-name places, but the unremarkable ones. Same goes with the animals. For every name-species gone, there'd be dozens to which the public is oblivious.
- cduzz 5y ago
  The reverse of that is that there are ecosystems that can only exist as a result of some large fauna's action on the environment: There are theories that permafrost is a result of woolly mammoths, for instance: https://theconversation.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help-stop-arctic-emissions-95956 https://theconversation.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help... or Horses / donkeys digging wells in deserts: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wild-donkeys-and-horses-dig-wells-provide-water-host-desert-species-180977627/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wild-donkeys-and-h... (edited to add horses)
  - prawn 5y ago
    That's interesting. If something wants to live up in Siberia and Canada, more power to it. I think the climate will unlock little more than mosquitoes up there to start with! Just not instinctively loving the idea of rebirthing name-species for a bit of glory rather than working against what we're generally doing to the environment. Makes for a public excuse for our actions. My MIL has been working the last few years to remove cows from their property and reforest the hillside. The transformation is amazing - it's gone from just beaten grass and cow crap, to loads of native trees. Eventually the trees will be home to mammals and birdlife, dropped logs for lizards, etc. Long way off regrowing the century-old gum trees that really make this area special though.

BrissyCoder 5y ago

Looking forward to bringing back the mighty Moa (12ft tall flightless bird) and having it replace the (rather lame imo) Kiwi as NZ's national animal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa

timClicks 5y ago
I think only the little bush moa is sequenced. I don't think that medium to large moa species will make a comeback any time soon.
- BrissyCoder 5y ago
  Slightly larger than a Turkey. Looks delicious still.
cdstyh 5y ago
I'm more interested in bringing back giant bugs from the carboniferous period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropleura https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropleura I have also thought about selectively breeding bugs in a high oxygen environment. We have made major changes to dogs and livestock through selective breeding. I'm sure we could make some giant bugs too.

geocrasher 5y ago

I wonder: Is a knowledge of Unix like systems is as important as I think it is?

danparsonson 5y ago
Don't worry, they're pretty easy to use - one might even describe them as 'childsplay'

GoalooUS 5y ago

looking forward to it, cause I want to know what they look like

headsoup 5y ago

I think this only leads to perverse outcomes, in principle the (further) reduced incentives to keep things from going extinct in the first place. There also needs to be a lot of consideration in reintroducing a species and how it fits into the ecosystem.

jonplackett 5y ago

The paywall ends this article on a real downer! > The male was caught in September 2004. He was old, had only one eye and died a few weeks later. The other two birds were spotted around the same time, then never seen again. THE END

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

How about ones we have already brought back? This recent article springs to mind: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78601/these-40-000-year-old-frozen-worms-just-came-back-to-life/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78601/these-40-000-year-old-f...

runawaybottle 5y ago
Does this validate cryogenic freezing?