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

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#61

Post by dividedbyzero »

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…

Bringing back beaver and wolves to areas where they've been wiped out is functionally the same and shows that often such niches don't get filled all that fast. The replacement for wolves has been hunters, beavers had no replacement. Usually when either gets reintroduced, the local ecosystem functions quite a bit better, there has been quite a bit of backlash by hunters because it turns out wolves do a substantial part of their work and there is less need to control deer populations. Might not work in all cases, but even if partial restoration is an option, having that genome around is a good thing in itself, as life thrives off diversity. Reducing genetic diversity hampers an ecosystem's ability to adapt to change. We have a lot of ecosystems that have been decimated to the point of being close to unviable, and we're losing keystone species all the time. Fixing what drove them over the cliff (hard if it's feral cats, easier if it's a specific pesticide, disease, hunting, or habitat fragmentation) and subsequent reintroduction may well prove a pretty important strategy to keep the world a place that humans can thrive in, especially given the predicted decrease in world population by the end of the century which may result in renaturation of swathes of land.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#62

Post by antichronology »

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 think the apt comparison here is landing on the moon. Although overtly it carries little value, the technologies developed along the way are very valuable.

As the article mentions improved fertilization, more accurate genome editing, and advances in in-vitro gastrulation are the real prize.

To me there is also something profoundly sad about the loss of molecular information with each extinct species. Having a simple hope, perhaps naive, to reverse this process is comforting.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#63

Post by Bronze_Colossus »

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…

In regarding the Mammoth there is some who claims that bringing the Mammoth back would help recreate the northern subarctic steppe grassland ecosystem that flourished in Siberia during the last glacial period. This would increase the animal density in Siberia and so on.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#64

Post by brokenkebaby »

msm_ wrote: post #30
kybernetyk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which isn't wrong. As humans are the product of evolution, humans changing habitats is just natural change.

This is technically correct, but I think this misses the point. Unhabitable future Earth with molten icebergs and polluted gray sky may, technically, be a "natural change" and a consequence of "natural" human actions. But we, humans, want to avoid this future. The same goes for causing extinction of most wild animal species. Edit: to expand on GP's point: imagine your house burned down, and somebody said "> Your prop…

The analogy doesn't work for the nature. It already went through very drastic changes, at least some of them attributed to activities of living organisms, and while it was bad for some species, it was good for others. It's even more so when we're talking about less than cataclysmic changes. It's hard to find any clear logic why disappearance of dodo bird is bad, and e.g. extinction of horses in America is ok.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#65

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

>Captain Cook’s Bean Snail [...] Today, they live only in zoos.

Sadly, the last member of that particular species died in 2016, in Edinburgh Zoo[1]. However, they had some success with other Partula snails[2].

[1] - https://islandbiodiversity.com/faba.htm

[2] - https://www.rzss.org.uk/conservation/our-projects/project-se...

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#66

Post by ethanbond »

timeon wrote: post #53
mo_42 wrote: 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…

> to make room for previously extinct species There is barely room for contemporary species.

After accounting for the enormous swaths of monoculture land required to grow plants to feed animals to slaughter for human consumption, sure.

If we can figure out how to reduce that though, there’s plenty of land.

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#67

Post by M95D »

I think the author missed one of the most important points: genetic variability to obtain the minimum viable population.[1]

Let's say they make a perfect clone of an extinct animal. It can't reproduce by itself. It needs a mate. Let's say they clone a second animal of the other gender. Let's say they reproduce (low chance of that, but let's say they do). All their descendants need mates too, other than their siblings, otherwise it leeds to inbreeding.[2]

They need dozens if not hundreds of different individuals to make a viable population that doesn't go extinct again.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#68

Post by Ensorceled »

kybernetyk wrote: post #24
Ensorceled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Which isn't wrong. As humans are the product of evolution, humans changing habitats is just natural change.

You can defend all sorts of things with that reasoning ... "humans are tribal by nature, so war is just natural"

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#69

Post by Ensorceled »

some_random wrote: post #26
Ensorceled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

You can say things in a value neutral way and have them still be true.

> > The habitat wasn't destroyed nor hurt in anyway.

> You can say things in a value neutral way and have them still be true.

How is that statement "value neutral"?

Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking

#70

Post by LatteLazy »

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 don't think that's true. Leaving aside that feral cats will just re-extinct the species, whatever other species has filled it's niches is very unlikely to be as good as that as the original.
Post reply on HN