Could the dodo come back from extinction? | Hacker News Reader

Could the dodo come back from extinction?

discoverwildlife.com

56 pointsHooke47 comments

"Sequencing the genome" is a bit misleading, it's "sequencing a genome", as the DNA used in the project came from a single individual dodo. Species are not individuals, they're populations. To get a snapshot of a species you'd need hundreds of genomes sequenced, then you'd look at the statistics of the variation between those genomes.

A healthy breeding population can't be clonal, this is pretty well understood from the standpoint of population biology. So you'd want to sequence many genomes, or at least have a means of introducing genetic diversity within the population. That natural population diversity evolved over about 20 million years (wiki), so at least several million generations of dodo ancestors.

Without the population diversity, you get the inbreeding problem, e.g. homozygous recessive genes causing all kinds of problems in development, reproduction, etc. Granted island populations are known for limited population diversity but cloning a single genome seems much worse.

I think the far more concerning part is the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added):

> These technologies will also help us to solve more proximate challenges. We will learn to edit the genomes of species that are still alive but in danger of becoming extinct, to help them to adapt to their rapidly changing habitats.

Most species that are in danger of becoming extinct aren't so because of their "rapidly changing habitats" but because of man-made destruction of their habitats. Either directly (e.g. by burning down the rain forest to clear land for agriculture) or indirectly (climate change). Not to mention the various species affected by fishing, hunting and agriculture as collateral damage.

I'm not sure how DNA manipulation is supposed to help with any of this. The closest thing I can think of is "Roundup™ resistant bees" and I shudder at the thought. This feels like it has less potential in preservation and more in creating various GMO livestock.

> I'm not sure how DNA manipulation is supposed to help with any of this.

Killer dodo birds, here we come.

Goose game was a warning!

It might be useful to genetically engineer hornier Giant Pandas.

“Man made destruction” is the same thing as “rapidly changing habitat”

Yeah but how do you engineer animals to withstand destruction of their habitat by humans? I presume making them capable of hunting and killing humans to protect their habitat is off the table.

As global human populations appear to be en route to a steep decline by the end of the century, using genetic engineering to get keystone species through until conditions hopefully improve might go a long way to prevent some of the direst consequences of the destruction we cause. Also, it would be immensely useful if we had this tech to help already severely reduced populations bounce back without too much damage from too little genetic diversity.

The answer is "no", of course.

As any biologist will tell you - these new technologies can't begin to bring these species "back". All they can do is create chimeras (based on other species) with certain attributes pasted on, as it were, such that they start to resemble the extinct species. But there is no technology that anyone can foresee that will bring any of these species back, with their entire genomes intact.

The premise of the article (that this is an open question, and you need to scroll down to find the answer) is flawed. It's basically clickbait.

That's John Hammond's business model in Jurassic Park: build a bunch of chimeras that look like what people imagine Dinosaurs to be, clickbait people into visiting his park by calling them actual Dinosaurs.

I would like nothing better to see the dodo brought back.

But right now, Baiji is probably extinct and the Vaquita is not far from extinction, all due to us. Yes, that is how things work but we are smart enough to know we are killing these species ourselves.

We still cannot bring back whatever, but far easier and cheaper to change our ways and try and keep existing species around.

> all due to us

Sorry, but what do you or I have to do with chinese rivers being poluted by local fishers?

He means human nature in general.

Yeah, I know what he meant. But I'm not a big fan of taking ownership of everything that's fucked up in the planet and make it personal. These are local effects that I as a European have nothing to do with. Fishers in China and California are the problem. We have our own problems where I'm not even part of that are enough. I dislike the trend to globalize local problems and taking ownership of everything.

Well you have a phone or a car that is partially manufactured in China.. so there's probably some Chinese river pollution from that. Globalization goes both ways.

He meant people in general. There's no need to be racist.

How exactly is his/her comment racist?

Please do explain to me how pointing to a chinese fish/whale living in chinese waters is extinct due to chinese fishers is racist, thanks.

Nothing is ever due to a singular person, it's never about "you and I", we're collectively fucking up. Individually you can own 500 cars and take the plane everyday and keep a clear conscience

Where I live is getting it's environmental act together. Whales have returned to New York Harbor. They're routinely found as far north as Cold Spring.

Dolphins, too. Fishing boats now run whale watching tours.

You can swim in the East River.

The Baiji is something I'd like to save, but have no control over, and those who _do_ have control over the situation dislike me.

bringing back species because we'd like to taste them is somehow interesting

The guys who manned the lighthouse on the island said they are awful.

On the other hand allegedly giant tortoises (not yet extinct) are the most delicious animal on Earth.

There's probably still a niche market for novelty meats from extinct species though.

If lab grown meat takes off there's no reason in principle for why cattle, chickens and pigs couldn't be replaced by say the blue whale, dodo and black rhino.

We might even find human meat at the supermarket. If all you need is a small cell culture to bootstrap most or all current ethical, conservation and disease concerns will go out the window.

Who says it only has to be a real animal? Give me Rapirin Corto(TM) - the naturally spicy fruity sirloin!

Taco Bell chubacabra tacos.

I don't see many people rushing to eat lab grown meat unless it's signifiantly cheaper(i.e cheaper than what's used in junk food "restaurants").

And I don't even think people are the primary market, but large industry; they're all about min/maxing, and don't care where the meat that goes into e.g. chicken nuggets or sausages comes from.

> [...] couldn't be replaced by say the blue whale, dodo and black rhino.

Or completely novel creations.

> We might even find human meat at the supermarket. If all you need is a small cell culture to bootstrap most or all current ethical, conservation and disease concerns will go out the window.

Spoiler: Project Hail Mary brings up the concept briefly. Interesting novel otherwise, too.

I seem to recall a short story about a future in which you can order not just human meat but your own meat and even the meat of celebrities. It doesn't seem entirely implausible if you consider porn performers already lending their "likeness" to sex toys. You or I might find the idea revolting but there is absolutely a market for "eating your favorite celebrity". Alternatively in such a future one might make the ethical argument that "your own meat" is the only meat you can ethically consume because it does not require anyone else's consent (which might be coerced).

"Yer fond of me dodo aint' ye? I seen it - yer fond of me dodo! Say it! Say it."

Kākāpō are apparently pleasant to eat, but very little meat on them, you'd need 3 - 5 for a good meal, according to Charlie "Mr Explorer" Douglas.

ha! we'll fix that through breeding, like we did for cows and chickens.

People also hated lobster back then.

Asimov got there first. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Statue_for_Father

Not on its own, that’s for sure

why would we want to?

far as I remember, dodo evolved from a south asian bird that adapted to an island with abundant food and no competition. if they were alive today preserving them would mean establishing an uninhabited island that wouldnt get any predators where they can thrive.

but there already are many species like that that could use our help.

Fatter chicken

> Rather, such technologies offer the potential to edit the genomes of current threatened species in order to help them adapt to changes in habitat and climate.

Make the dodo an apex predator, six feet tall, with a razor-sharp beak.

Call it Indomitus Dodo.

What could possibly go wrong?

The hubris in the quoted statement is unbelievable. I only hope that the people thinking up such stuff never get any decision-making power worth mentioning.

The Dodo used to walk around, And take the sun and air. The sun yet warms his native ground -- The Dodo is not there!

The voice which used to squawk and squeak Is now for ever dumb -- Yet may you see his bones and beak All in the Mu-se-um.

Took a lot of time to memorize this in my childhood, sad to see it become obsolete.

Was this taught at your school?

Yes. It was an Anglo-Indian Christian school maybe thats why. None of my peers from other schools remember having it.

That’s one of the better ones from https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=bel...

Betteridge's Law of Headlines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

So… no?

yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com