I think any attempt at "de-extinction" is quite literally a statement of disbelief of evolution. A core tenant (at least from my perspective) of evolution is survival of the fittest. I agree with all the other comments mentioning that the voids that extinct animals left have been filled and their ecosystems have changed, but that is different from their ecosystems being destroyed. Accept change, and move on. Also, humanity has a track record of trying to play god and that not going too well.
De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
71–80 of 91 posts
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#72I 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…
3. The dodo went extinct because, by all accounts, they were delicious
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#73I 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…
Sometimes the holes don't get filled. Mammoths in northern steppes are one example, and getting them back would actually be pretty helpful. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-bringing-b...
Another great example are Avocados, Papayas, Zapotes, Honey-locusts and other American large-seeded fruit that have no known seed dispersal mechanism anymore. All the big mammals that like giant sloth (and again, the mammoth) that would eat the fruit and later poop the seed somewhere else are gone and it's kind of a surprise that so many of those survived the last 13,000 years (and nobody knows what we may have lost during that time).
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>Species going extinct doesn't make the world deader.
It depends on why the went extinct. If they went extinct because humans destroyed the habitat, rather than being out competed, then it's unlikely as much life or any life can just move in.
See the coral reefs or Klamath river
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#75I think any attempt at "de-extinction" is quite literally a statement of disbelief of evolution. A core tenant (at least from my perspective) of evolution is survival of the fittest. I agree with all the other comments mentioning that the voids that extinct animals left have been filled and their ecosystems have changed, but that is different from their ecosystems being destroyed. Accept change, and move on. Also, hu…
Evolution isn't a doctrine that you're supposed to follow, that's social Darwinism.
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#76I 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 fully disagree. There are so many examples of animals that once de-facto disappeared (like huge sea-lion colonies, same for turtles, reintroduced american and/or european bison, black footed ferret, arabian oryx, hermit ibis, wolves, ...) and then came back, to restore their original biological role. You cannot release a mammoth into central park and hope that it just works. But nobody is trying to do that.
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#77> after scientists cloned an animal and watched it die, moments later, from a lung defect
Moments after they cloned it? The immediate result of cloning is a single cell, not something with a lung. So that single cell grew into an organism with lungs, in moments?
I stopped reading a few paragraphs after that.
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#78I 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…
Extinction is the complete destruction of something that took millions of years to make. As much as it seems like people create the world they live in, they don't. We ingeniously assemble the world we live in out of the great diversity of material around us. It's better that we have wheat now than the world in which we didn't. It's better that we have tomatoes, corn, chickens, etc.. Without them, our lives would likely be more difficult and less pleasurable. Tomorrow's tomatoes and chickens may have been killed today partially out of greed, but mostly out of carelessness and lack of understanding.
> I don’t understand why people are obsessed with extinction as some great evil - it’s as evil as the concept of death itself;
If you characterize worrying about extinction as being obsessed, would you characterize worrying about death to be an obsession we should rid ourselves of? Why should I worry if people are dying, people always die, doesn't matter?
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#79I 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…
If someone went to set your house on fire, empty your bank account and kill your family, I'm pretty sure "your life wasn't destroyed nor hurt in anyway. It just changed" would not be well accepted by you.
Re: De-Extinction? Surely You’re Joking
#80I 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…
Technically that could be overcome if you don't care about individual specimen welfare and mutate until you get viable specimens. It won't be quite the same but it would restore a viable species.