Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dire Wolf Is Back

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#101

Post by throwanem »

prescriptivist wrote: post #100
throwanem wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sterile-insect technique has been practiced since the 1950s. There is nothing novel or newly promising in that regard presented here.

Are you saying that a company like Colossal has nothing to offer to the field of genetic biocontrol or are you saying there is nothing of interest in the field?

I'm saying that even if they can do it, which nothing so far suggests, then the enormous prior art in the field should still make it uninteresting to them in any case. Nothing you could patent, and it isn't charismatic to billionaires. Why bother?

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#102

Post by generalizations »

lolinder wrote: post #90
generalizations wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That entire article just sounds like a collection of every naysayer argument they could find, compiled into an authoritative-sounding essay on why doing nothing is better than doing some very cool proof-of-concept genetic editing tech. Are they just reflexively against tech these days? Because when the arguments they bring are so scattered and miscellaneous, it sure sounds like they're justifying a preexisting opposi…

Collosal would face less pushback if they were upfront about the fact that they aren't a serious attempt at solving any ecological issues but that maybe they could push the tech forward enough that someone else could use it to solve real problems. There's nothing wrong with building cool proof-of-concept tech as a prestige project that might actually lead to real solutions some day, but Collosal's dire wolf lookalike…

I suspect the environmental pushback is from a vocal minority which dislikes the cynical lip-service companies have found it necessary/expedient to give.

"nor a direct path" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there - I see no reason to push back against a company that is figuring out how to run back the extinction process. If you're claiming that their attempts yet a solution, then your point is as useless as expecting them to solve the entire problem on the first go. If you're claiming that their attempts aren't even going in the right direction, and aren't how you find a solution, then that would require much more evidence towards a negative proof than has yet been raised here - enough to say that they should definitely give up now.

In fact, insofar as we care about extinction, their success is likely our best shot at long-term preservation. I'd like to see them keep trying.

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#103

Post by bbor »

lolinder wrote: post #65
johnecheck wrote: post #34

Here's[0] a recent editorial about Colossal, the company behind this. Basically, they make some flimsy claims about conservation and combating climate change to justify creating a poor imitation of Jurassic Park. Naturally, there's some real moral dilemmas that they gloss over in pursuit of the money a few wealthy people will pay to be able to say "I saw a Mammoth!" [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/04/editor…

Every project I've seen of theirs has been like this one: take an existing animal and tweak its genome very slightly to make it look kinda like the extinct one, then declare that they've brought back the extinct species. Never mind that it's still just a wolf with 14 very specific genes tweaked. That could be just a limitation of the current technology and one that they're working on fixing—maybe some day they plan t…

Plus, at a certain point we should probably ask what we're even doing here. At the same time and using the same ostensible "pro-environment" framework, we:

1. refuse to engage in biome modification to save soon-to-be-homeless species like the Axolotl,

2. are willing to go to great lengths to preserve existing biomes exactly as they are, such as opening up owl hunting permits to protect the western US's shittier owls from encroachment by the dominant eastern species, and

3. are trying to revive mammoths and dire wolves to increase biodiversity.

If we truly care about biodiversity, we should probably decide upfront why we aren't protecting some of the 400K species of beetles or 150K species of flies (together making up ~1/3rd of all animal species) instead.

Personally, my preferred answer is simpler: embrace human aesthetic preferences, rather than pretend we're doing all this for some altruistic, scientifically-supported cause. Not only should we respect nature, we should respect its inherent capacity for change and disregard for human morality. Nature is ambivalent towards mass extinctions, much less specific ones!

TBH, the Red Mars books' discussion around when and why to preserve abiotic martian landscapes may have radicalized me on this issue...

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#105

Post by calf »

pmags wrote: post #22
api wrote: post #4

Containing fragments doesn't mean this is a dire wolf, or does it? Biological categories like species are fuzzy anyway. There is tremendous variation within each species. But where do you draw a line? It's something that perhaps has more in common with a dire wolf than extant wolves. Maybe it looks like one. Does it act like one? Do we have any way of knowing?

Yes, species/lineage/population distinctions are quite fuzzy at the level of divergence under consideration here (dire wolves vs gray wolves). Here's what was actually have done according to the New Yorker article, starting with a gray wolf genome as the baseline: After almost a year of computational genetic analysis, Colossal researchers used Crispr to make twenty edits on fourteen genes. Fifteen edits were derived…

I don't get it, so dire wolves were only 20 gene changes from gray wolves? Not thousands of tiny,crucial changes all over their respective genetic codes?

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#106

Post by johnecheck »

renewiltord wrote: post #79
johnecheck wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors expect returns on the hundreds of millions of dollars they've invested. At best, it'll be a very expensive zoo.

In fact, Apple has invested so much money in the iPhone. The only way they can make it work is if they sell the iPhone only to billionaires. Yes, just like Disney. The cost of Disneyland and Disneyworld mean that the only way it could provide a return is if the only people who can attend are the very wealthy. I think my model of the world is very good. It accurately describes things.

iPhones are very expensive.

If you own an iPhone, you're already wealthier than a large chunk of the planet.

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#107

Post by mcdonje »

JauntTrooper wrote: post #30
MisterTea wrote: post #3

Paywalled so I have to ask, why the dire wolf? Why not an animal that humans drove to extinction like the dodo bird? Is it because dire wolves sound cool and were in video games?

Birds are more difficult to clone than mammals. I don't think we've been able to clone one yet. I hope to see a passenger pigeon one day though.

Searched for this. Passenger Pigeons are the #1 species I want resurrected.

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#108

Post by johnecheck »

amarant wrote: post #81
johnecheck wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors expect returns on the hundreds of millions of dollars they've invested. At best, it'll be a very expensive zoo.

Nah. The zoo's expenses will be pretty much fixed, regardless of number of visitors. They'll want as many visitors as possible: there's more money in selling a million cheap tickets per day than there is selling 5 expensive ones! At worst, it'll be a very crowded zoo

Presumably those expenses will be a lot higher than a regular zoo, at least in the short/mid term.

I'd assume that translates to relatively costly ticket prices, right?

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#109

Post by johnecheck »

prescriptivist wrote: post #75
johnecheck wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any number of species ? Maybe in theory, but propping up an entire ecosystem in collapse is well beyond Colossal's reach and incentives. This money and research would be better spent preventing the ecosystems from collapsing in the first place. If we fix climate change, I could see an argument for investing in restoring the ecosystems that were destroyed. But 'de-extincting' a species without addressing the root caus…

> Realizing this, these types will give up on re-introducing the original organism and instead create a bioengineered version that can survive in the changed world. I fear this path will not end well for us. Developing and injecting genetic resiliency into existing populations isn't the worst thing in the world. Additionally adding animals that can only reproduce sterile offspring would be an amazing tool for dealing…

Agreed, engineering our environment is hardly the worst thing. But it comes with some real risks that we shouldn't take lightly.

Re: The Dire Wolf Is Back

#110

Post by ta1243 »

johnecheck wrote: post #34

Here's[0] a recent editorial about Colossal, the company behind this. Basically, they make some flimsy claims about conservation and combating climate change to justify creating a poor imitation of Jurassic Park. Naturally, there's some real moral dilemmas that they gloss over in pursuit of the money a few wealthy people will pay to be able to say "I saw a Mammoth!" [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/04/editor…

> in pursuit of the money a few wealthy people will pay

Perhaps they could have a coupon day?

Post reply on HN