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

De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

cell.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#51

Post by IntrepidWorm »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #5

>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…

In 1800's United States, fire departments in many large cities (Chicago and New York, to name two) were private for-profit industries. If a homeowner did not pay what was effectively protection money, the fire department would refuse to extinguish your property if it caught fire, and would sit around as the dwelling burned, in some cases with people still inside.

Fascinating idiom, thanks!

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#52

Post by remote_phone »

This author spends a lot of time pooh poohing the idea without considering the fact that research could result in techniques that don’t exist right now. That’s the whole point in science and investing in research!

How about instead of bemoaning how “money could be better spent on conservation”, the author could pursue that route (they won’t) and let people who are interested in research do what they want to do?

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#53

Post by timeon »

mo_42 wrote: post #27
leidenfrost wrote: post #18

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…

> to make room for previously extinct species

There is barely room for contemporary species.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#54

Post by remote_phone »

IntrepidWorm wrote: post #51
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #5

>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…

In 1800's United States, fire departments in many large cities (Chicago and New York, to name two) were private for-profit industries. If a homeowner did not pay what was effectively protection money, the fire department would refuse to extinguish your property if it caught fire, and would sit around as the dwelling burned, in some cases with people still inside. Fascinating idiom, thanks!

That exists today in areas where you have to pay the fire department separately.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#56

Post by ignoramous »

leidenfrost wrote: post #18

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 may also come to be dominated by a bully species due to human intervention (think: plastic pollution causing Turtle deaths and thus rise in Jellyfish population) which may result in extinctions of a variety of other species.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#57

Post by timeon »

mc32 wrote: post #43
leidenfrost wrote: post #18

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…

It's unlikely these resurrected species will inhabit their ancestral habitats but rather, like Jurassic Park, satisfy human curiosity and entertainment for nature itself does not care one way or the other. Just think, eventually and extinct species zoo garden, not unlike JP, except more tame species... maybe. It would be a destination attraction for sure.

That sounds bit perverse.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#58

Post by BurningFrog »

cmh89 wrote: post #17
ramraj07 wrote: post #7

I don’t understand why people are obsessed with extinction as some great evil - it’s as evil as the concept of death itself; killing something is evil (or is it not? Outside humans even this isn’t considered unnatural), but something dying naturally is not. Clearly many animals have gone extinct because of humans (many memorable ones before humanity developed a sufficiently profound collective consciousness that coul…

I personally don't want to live in a bland, dead world. To me its like climate change. The climate change, just like species go extinct. But humans are exasperating both processes in a ways that will ultimately make living on earth worse for future generations.

Species going extinct doesn't make the world deader.

"Bland" is a better argument. If one bird species spreads across the world and outcompetes 10 regional species, there will be just as many birds as before. There will be less regional variation though.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#59

Post by Robotbeat »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #31
tokai wrote: 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.

Pretty sure humans caused the extinction of many of the target de-extinction animals. We became insanely good hunters, and killed off just a massive amount of megafauna like mammoths, and then we proceeded to do it to a ton of other species.

I am not so fatalistic about humanity’s environmental impact to just chalk it up to “well, see, mammoths shouldn’t have been so easy for humans to kill and so tasty…” or the same thing applied to any of the more recent species due to habitat loss, etc. (“sorry you can’t thrive in suburbs or clear cut fields, evolution is a b*tch, ain’t she?”)

Humanity’s capacity for higher level reflection is ALSO “natural” in the same sense, so all of these de-extinction projects are equally “natural.”

Post reply on HN