Reviving extinct species may soon be possible | Hacker News Reader

Reviving extinct species may soon be possible

economist.com

43 pointsedward66 comments

This is a nice option to have of course.

What kid hasn’t imagined mammoths or saber toothed tigers, or Tasmanian tigers and dodo birds (I’m putting dinosaurs aside because they are tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years older)

But, while good for the imagination, where would we put them?

Their ecosystems don’t exist. If they did, people are encroaching on them...

So that leaves curiosities at the zoo (or special once extinct species travel destination).

Is that what we want?

And what about Neanderthals, do we bring them back? Being near human what are the ethics of that?

That leaves a safety valve for species going extinct. This would be a good use. But it can have the effect of people caring less (don’t worry, we can bring them back if we have to)

On the other hand... this and space travel....

I'm glad you mentioned Neanderthals. We have sequenced their genome and this will soon be possible. Whether there exists an ethical way to do it, I cannot say. (Probably not!)

On another note, the amount of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans appears to have a beneficial effect, and I have been wondering about the potential benefits to humanity of increasing this percentage.

For an interesting perspective on the Neanderthal mind: http://franklludwig.com/neanderthal.html

What if....a rich guy made an island just for these species, and turned it into a sort of amusement park for Jurassic-era species?

We would likely have to generate such ecosystems for ourselves, probably in giant rotating space habitats which can be enclosed off from invasive species and poachers. So, to put it lightly, probably a few centuries off.

We have never even made a truly self sufficient closed ecosystem on Earth, our knowledge of such complex systems is far too infantile.

People make enclosed ecosystems in jars all the time for fun

I should have clarified that I mean large self enclosed ecosystems, as in bigger than a jar. Something that can sustain multiple larger animals is to put it lightly - a major challenge. The mess that was Biosphere 2 should be a testemant to that.

Maybe it's just a theory but I found this video [0] interesting. Maybe some animals would not be so out of place if we brought them back.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXAirenteRA

There are some interesting ideas in that, but it feels odd to be arguing for deforestation. Which doesn't mean it's wrong. Just contrary to the usual teachings.

They're not near human, they're human.

In regards to Neanderthals, I think until such a time people can stop being bigoted towards each other we shouldn’t be reviving an actual different species (as close they are to us.)

Those ecosystems exist, they just had issues with reproduction, predators, possibly disease. We can control for them middle one a bit.

Apparently there were some pretty exotic animals that Aboriginal cultures and Neandrathals wiped out, because of the low frequency of them. Didn't take too much effort on our part.

In the same way that Wolves or Bisons can be re-introduced in some areas, probably some extinct animals can as well with a little bit of help.

Looking forward to bringing back the mighty Moa (12ft tall flightless bird) and having it replace the (rather lame imo) Kiwi as NZ's national animal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa

I'm more interested in bringing back giant bugs from the carboniferous period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropleura

I have also thought about selectively breeding bugs in a high oxygen environment. We have made major changes to dogs and livestock through selective breeding. I'm sure we could make some giant bugs too.

I think only the little bush moa is sequenced. I don't think that medium to large moa species will make a comeback any time soon.

Slightly larger than a Turkey. Looks delicious still.

I wonder: Is a knowledge of Unix like systems is as important as I think it is?

Don't worry, they're pretty easy to use - one might even describe them as 'childsplay'

It doesn't matter if you can restore a cellular lineage if the only environment that the organism can exist in has been wiped from the face of the Earth.

Until we can restore balance to whole ecosystem we will never be masters of nature.

But restoring balance to a whole ecosystem may require reintroducing extinct species. If's obviously not sufficient, but in some cases it may be required.

If we have the ability, IMO we should bring back any species that humanity has made extinct in recent times, say 150 years without any hesitation (assuming we can do it safely). And I think it is our moral obligation to do so. We have been the the arbiter of whether these species lived or died, and we chose death. We have an opportunity to choose again, and we'd be royal a-holes if we choose death again.

Then I think we should consider bringing back species we wiped out eons ago (eg mammoth), if their ecosystem still exists.

I think generally the problem is going to come down to "if their ecosystem still exists". We're wiping out the places these creatures lived. Not just the big-name places, but the unremarkable ones. Same goes with the animals. For every name-species gone, there'd be dozens to which the public is oblivious.

The reverse of that is that there are ecosystems that can only exist as a result of some large fauna's action on the environment:

There are theories that permafrost is a result of woolly mammoths, for instance:

https://theconversation.com/could-resurrecting-mammoths-help...

Horses / donkeys digging wells in deserts: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wild-donkeys-and-h...

(edited to add horses)

That's interesting. If something wants to live up in Siberia and Canada, more power to it. I think the climate will unlock little more than mosquitoes up there to start with! Just not instinctively loving the idea of rebirthing name-species for a bit of glory rather than working against what we're generally doing to the environment. Makes for a public excuse for our actions.

My MIL has been working the last few years to remove cows from their property and reforest the hillside. The transformation is amazing - it's gone from just beaten grass and cow crap, to loads of native trees. Eventually the trees will be home to mammals and birdlife, dropped logs for lizards, etc. Long way off regrowing the century-old gum trees that really make this area special though.

Let's not bring back the passenger pigeon. I like having reliable grain crops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

> Hunting of passenger pigeons was documented and depicted in contemporaneous newspapers, wherein various trapping methods and uses were featured. The most often reproduced of these illustrations was captioned "Winter sports in northern Louisiana: shooting wild pigeons", and published in 1875. Passenger pigeons were also seen as agricultural pests, since entire crops could be destroyed by feeding flocks. The bird was described as a "perfect scourge" by some farming communities, and hunters were employed to "wage warfare" on the birds to save grain, as shown in another newspaper illustration from 1867 captioned as "Shooting wild pigeons in Iowa".[124] When comparing these "pests" to the bison of the Great Plains, the valuable resource needed was not the species of animals but the agriculture which was consumed by said animal. The crops that were eaten were seen as marketable calories, proteins, and nutrients all grown for the wrong species.

The first words of the first link returned searching on "what is extinction rate" says

> Life on Earth is under pressure

> By the end of the century, half of all species could be facing extinction. The rate of species extinction is up to 10,000 times higher than the natural, historical rate.

Nobody loves and values science more than I do, and people are free to work on what they want, but the greater need seems to be stopping our causing extinctions. Restoring one or two while losing millions doesn't seem a good trade.

How about ones we have already brought back? This recent article springs to mind: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78601/these-40-000-year-old-f...

Does this validate cryogenic freezing?

I think this only leads to perverse outcomes, in principle the (further) reduced incentives to keep things from going extinct in the first place.

There also needs to be a lot of consideration in reintroducing a species and how it fits into the ecosystem.

Some comments are mentioning the utility but I'd like to offer another opinion: until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet rather than short term gains I'm not sure we should be trusted with such a power.

There are so many helpful things we could do for our planet which aren't even truly disruptive to our economies which we neglect to do for either inertia sake or the profit of existing archaic industries...

Take for example ditching most of our usage of fossil fuels, we have nuclear and other technologies but it would be greatly destabilizing to economies dependent on selling oil. Considering the environmental catastrophe we already face and will face from global warming it's no brainer!

What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. Check out sales in Alaska and Canada.

In short, what would this be used for? I imagine what ever seems entertaining and marketable which will just get us further from saving ourselves and the planet...

This comment is a bit pithy for the reasons already mentioned and more. Humanity has never acted as one thing. There is no order to the activities required to turn things around for the world. Reintroducing a keystone species can draw more attention to an under appreciated ecosystem a la polar bear. conversely, it could make light of saving a species if we can simply reanimate it down the road. But again, there is room for all sorts of efforts. i doubt more tools and more species would be an overall detriment. i would love to see an ecosystem rev to full glory.

Guerilla biohackers releasing extinct keystone species into their original habitats would be a pretty dank cyberpunk future.

Except their natural habitats are disappearing quickly so guerilla biohackers better hurry up or they're gonna be left sitting with moas in their basements.

This is sort of happening in the U.K.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/maverick...

… just so they can go extinct again?

past and present in fact, is happening yet and is a really bad idea. Some things must not be left to script kiddies.

Wouldn't argue against it being pithy, and I don't dream we'd all unite to save the planet. What I do dream and hope for is we have less of a united force destroying the planet and a larger disunited force trying to actually save it.

i dream for it as well. but, again, “united” is only incidental, right?? of course, it’s not coincidental that people,individually, jumped on the great utility that fossil fuels provided. now we are looking for people to see the benefit to prevent something fairly unintuitive and intangible- it’s a big ask. there’s room for plenty of approaches but i would root for the ones that dances around “greater good” but, rather, work within the framework of human behavior for what it is. altruism is in the mix but probably can’t be relied upon to be the primary driver for where we need to get.

> What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways.

The price of lumber (i.e. a manufactured product) saw increased prices. The price for the “raw” logs has remained relatively stable.

Lastly have there been any serious plans to rollback forestry protections since the change of administration?

>what ever seems entertaining and marketable

Sadly, I think you're right. My first thought was that it would turn into exotic designer dogs and cats.

> In short, what would this be used for?

A stepping stone to inventing new species, or augmenting humans with super-human powers… duh!

... or perhaps do something about Climate Change?

The problem is that we don't get to make choices as a world or even as a species about what is overall best. As a race, we often devolve to individuals doing what seems best at the moment... much like the last of a pair of birds being brought together to mate.

> until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet

This is the exact type of hubris that got us in the current downtrending situation. Humans are not capable of making and executing on such decisions.

Intelligent and capable people work on problems that are interesting to them. Anything else is forced labor.

Not sure what your point is, many of the most intelligent and capable people in the western world are working at Google and Facebook designing the best algorithms to make people click on ads.

I imagine it's not because it's the most interesting but because market demands force them into it. Far less resources are put towards solving the climate crisis...

Clearly that is the choice that most interests them. And some people choose global ecological health instead.

There are lots of people. Your complaint seems to amount to "no one should work on their own projects until the world is solved", which is not viable -- though it has been tried in the past, with great negative effects.

(Also, an aside: I think this criticism of G & FB is overwrought (and I'm 100% G&FB-free, personally). We see this snark get thrown around a lot, but almost no one in either corp works on the insidiousness++ version of ad targeting. The best&brightest at each definitely do not. They all profit from it of course, but the same can be said for all employees of large corps, to varying degrees.)

> Clearly that is the choice that most interests them.

I think our discussion won’t be productive as you don’t want to consider what conditions the market plays in forcing people’s choices.

That is my point though. You seem to be arguing for some externally-imposed direction of labor. That will fail.

If you are instead arguing that leaders should lead, and governments should invest in the future of their people, then that message is not coming through.

The biologists working on reviving extinct species are not the workers building solar plants.

> I imagine it's not because it's the most interesting but because market demands force them into it.

No one is forced into the jobs you're describing.

Market demands make those jobs more appealing to some. Appealing is interesting.

I saw this movie when I was younger. It was entertaining as a viewer but I doubt the participants enjoyed it as thoroughly.

This is a really interesting field that often gets overlooked. I’m very excited about the future with species saving technology.

Life, uh, finds a way.

Sort of throwing good money after bad. One wonders what a species that didn't quite apprehend the consequences of being delicious (as an evolutionary strategy) might be able to contribute if we brought them back, no?

There’s a lot of luck in life too. The timing of a natural disaster or biological disease or being around when humans evolved contributes a fair amount. It’s not just genetics that determines survival.

Actually, it's sort of the opposite. The few dozen animal species that have been farmed and domesticated are quite prolific.

Regardless, blaming a species for habitat loss due to forest clearing, for example, feels slightly misdirected to me.

Deliciousness seems like one answer.

Tongue in cheek maybe. But I've thought before how being 'useful' to the dominant species on the planet [whether that means tasting nice or just being a cute furry companion] could be perceived as a legitimate and highly efficient evolutionary strategy, without all the hard work of actually 'evolving'.

I think it's inevitable that, when the human race does start colonising other worlds [however far off in the distant future] we'll take our cats and dogs etc. with us. Those creatures will effectively have secured the benefits of all our centuries of technological advances and [with us] escaped this "all eggs in one fragile planetary basket" trap, without even having had to go so far as experimentally banging a few rocks together to see how things might develop from there.

[Mind you, with the advent of lab grown meat, it might turn out that the dogs, cats, etc played a better hand than the chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, etc did. Being cute is more likely to get you a lift off-planet in the distant future, than being delicious]

But is it practical and prudent?

The paywall ends this article on a real downer!

> The male was caught in September 2004. He was old, had only one eye and died a few weeks later. The other two birds were spotted around the same time, then never seen again.

THE END

Does anyone have a non-paywalled sources for this article?

https://archive.is/20X26

But why? Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again.

You're assuming there is ecological balance

In my country, idiotic victorians introduced several predator species (stoats, weasels etc.) back around the turn of the last century - a mere blink of the eye ago in ecological time.

Since then, these species are steadily killing off our native birds species. Balance has not yet been reached, if by that we mean the extinction of those remaining species.

Many very committed people work very hard on removing the introduced predators, and restoring the conditions that allowed the native species to thrive. I think we'll win, because technology.

> Introducing once extinct species would disrupt the existing ecological balance and the conditions that made them extinct to begin with would continue to persist and they would simply go extinct again.

It is a little aggressive, but I like the case you imply for using CRISPR gene drives to wipe out invasive species. Just getting rats out of New Zealand would be a tremendous win.

The ones they’re trying it on aren’t fully extinct yet. Only the male line is, two females are alive. It can also lead to science that could possibly help bee’s, fish, bugs, and countless other life forms that we’re about to wipe out.

I think it's good technology to have just in case.

For example, if humanity does something dumb that accidentally makes bees or whales go extinct, having an undo to bring back keystone species that entire ecosystems depend on is pretty nice.

Except it's likely the cause of the extinction will still be present and make reintroduction nearly impossible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com