Live data from Hacker News

De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

cell.substack.com

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#31
post #8

Don't we had a lot of movies explaining how bad this could go? Don't we had enough self inflicted catastrophes to keep us entertained that we need another disruptive one?

Not a single one of those movies are an actual argument against a real de-extinction project.

Well, I find the arrogance in trying to undo Natural Selection quite cute. She'll win. Big time.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#32

I don't see the point of de-extinction other than naturist nostalgia. The problem around de-extinction is that you can't just shoehorn a new species into a habitat that already filled the void left by a past extinction. If some marsupial in Australia got extinct because it was replaced by feral cats, then that habitat won't welcome that marsupial anymore. And there's nothing we can do about it. Even if we somehow peo…

> The habitat wasn't destroyed nor hurt in anyway. It just changed. That's an interesting way to describe the massive effect humans are having on pretty much every habitat on the planet ... "It just changed."

Because in the end, that's really it. Even if it's due to human intervention and even if that makes us feel sad.

At some point, a new habitat will reach a new balance with our introduced species and there's no going back.

And yes, there may be less diversity in species all over the world (for the time being) thanks to that. But once the new species learn to reproduce and survive in a new place, then that is the "new" state of the habitat.

I agree we should strive to not fuck up our place on the planet. But habitats will change whether we like it or not.

Maybe in a million years feral cats in Australia will differentiate themselves with the ones in Europe.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#33
Is there someone on HN who can speak to how fast gene editing technology is improving? I was a bit skeptical of the author's claim that construction of a mammoth genome would require 5000 years, but I couldn't find any information in a cursory search on what the technology improvement speed is.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#34

I don't see the point of de-extinction other than naturist nostalgia. The problem around de-extinction is that you can't just shoehorn a new species into a habitat that already filled the void left by a past extinction. If some marsupial in Australia got extinct because it was replaced by feral cats, then that habitat won't welcome that marsupial anymore. And there's nothing we can do about it. Even if we somehow peo…

Are you an ecologist?

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#35
post #27

I don't see the point of de-extinction other than naturist nostalgia. The problem around de-extinction is that you can't just shoehorn a new species into a habitat that already filled the void left by a past extinction. If some marsupial in Australia got extinct because it was replaced by feral cats, then that habitat won't welcome that marsupial anymore. And there's nothing we can do about it. Even if we somehow peo…

I see two points: 1. scientific curiosity, and 2. people might enjoy seeing these animals. Also, humans are terraforming this planet anyway so I don’t see a reason not to do it in a way to make room for previously extinct species. Some other discussion could be if those animals would be happy living. Maybe we will have to ask whether we de-extinct Homo Erectus. Apparently, we're not even asking this for animals we ea…

I see another point which ties with your second: 3. Money

"And we can charge anything we want, 2,000 a day, 10,000 a day, and people will pay it. And then there's the merchandise..."

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#37

>Critics say that Colossal’s money would be better spent in protecting existing species, rather than de-extinct animals that have been dead for thousands of years. Maybe that’s true, but it’s extremely unlikely that this $150M would have gone to conservation otherwise! If rich people want to spend their money on de-extinction, and bolster reproductive technologies in the meantime, then we say “let ‘em.” There's a Fre…

That doesn't really sound like the same thing?

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#38
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single one of those movies are an actual argument against a real de-extinction project.

Well, I find the arrogance in trying to undo Natural Selection quite cute. She'll win. Big time.

Where's the line when it constitutes 'undoing natural selection'? Resurrecting extinct animals? Conservation efforts? Taking antibiotics?

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#40
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two points: 1. scientific curiosity, and 2. people might enjoy seeing these animals. Also, humans are terraforming this planet anyway so I don’t see a reason not to do it in a way to make room for previously extinct species. Some other discussion could be if those animals would be happy living. Maybe we will have to ask whether we de-extinct Homo Erectus. Apparently, we're not even asking this for animals we ea…

I see another point which ties with your second: 3. Money "And we can charge anything we want, 2,000 a day, 10,000 a day, and people will pay it. And then there's the merchandise..."

That's how it really works. They'll be show animals.

"Think how many ideas were lost, and eventually forgotten, when those animals went extinct... like what did they taste like?"

Post reply on HN