16 replies to this topic

[Egann]

I'm sure most of you have heard of the extinct species we've successfully sequenced, and as genetic technology improves the question isn't if we can resurrect extinct species, but if we should.

It's not as simple as you'd think.

There are compelling ecological reasons to resurrect extinct species. Some have argued for rewilding to maintain certain habitats or to perform important functions like seed dispersal or fire suppression. As I’ve written previously, many plants live today as ecological anachronisms, out of context with their extinct dispersers. Bringing back the passenger pigeon may be an important part of saving the sand cherry (or even the American chestnut).

Arguments against de-extinction often center around what we don’t know—particularly when it comes to the long-term collateral effects of our actions. The precautionary principle can be unsatisfying in conservation, because taken to its logical extreme it precludes action of any kind. We often don’t have the luxury of waiting to determine how effective an action will be, especially as we race to save species on the brink of extinction.

What species would you like to see resurrected? Do you fear long term ecological consequences, or do you have a different concern? Do you even think de-extinction is possible?

Discuss.

[Sir Deimos]

The biggest problem is reintroducing these species after the climate has already adapted to their absence could be just as harmful as when they went extinct in the first place. On the other hand I bet Dodo is delicious.

[Hana-Nezumi]

I say we should only be allowed to bring back species that we caused the extinction of.

[Fëanen]

I'm no ecologist, but I'd think there's a time frame here. If we're talking a very recent extinction, it might help to rebalance the ecosystems in question, but species longer dead might just upset the balance further. We are dealing with very delicate systems here. I think a few cautious attempts (if possible) might be worth looking into, but sometimes if you've messed something up the worst thing to do is to keep fiddling with it.

[wisp]

No way! Didn't anyone watch Jurassic Park? XDD

[Egann]

Despite being the one to post this, I'm not terribly concerned with the ecology because we can't just "make" a species ex nihilo and have it survive. The last estimates I heard said that a minimum of ten generations would have to be genetically engineered specifically so the species would have enough genetic diversity.

So, let's say we did resurrect the woolly mammoths: they would be in captivity for at least ten generations, which is about 200 years. Even something smaller with a faster breeding cycle like the Tasmanian Tiger or a Sabertooth would need to be raised in captivity for something like 40 years.

That, and it's more likely that a species will be outright rejected from the ecosystem than that it will become a pest species. The old ecology rule of thumb is that 1 in 10 species introduced will stick, and 1 in 10 species that stick will become pests.

Personally, I think we should do it at least once just to prove we can. Forementioned Tasmanian and Sabertooth Tigers are on the top of my list, in part because I might actually live to see one.

[Fëanen]

Perhaps this concept might be more useful for species who're here right now, but sadly may not be within our lifetime. Kind of a fail-safe for such magnificent beasts as the tiger and panda.

I will say that a zoo of "reconstructed" species would be utterly fascinating.

[Masamune]

I'm inclined to agree with Hana. If we drive a species to extinction, we're morally obligated to do something about it.

But animals that are at a dead end (like the Panda) and are going extinct on their own or already have? There's no point to it except maybe to make the zoo like Feanen mentioned.

[Ikiosho]

Despite being the one to post this, I'm not terribly concerned with the ecology because we can't just "make" a species ex nihilo and have it survive. The last estimates I heard said that a minimum of ten generations would have to be genetically engineered specifically so the species would have enough genetic diversity.

So, let's say we did resurrect the woolly mammoths: they would be in captivity for at least ten generations, which is about 200 years. Even something smaller with a faster breeding cycle like the Tasmanian Tiger or a Sabertooth would need to be raised in captivity for something like 40 years.

That, and it's more likely that a species will be outright rejected from the ecosystem than that it will become a pest species. The old ecology rule of thumb is that 1 in 10 species introduced will stick, and 1 in 10 species that stick will become pests.

Personally, I think we should do it at least once just to prove we can. Forementioned Tasmanian and Sabertooth Tigers are on the top of my list, in part because I might actually live to see one.

Okay, then woolly mammoths are in captivity for 200 years. So what? We'd be diversifying the planet. How different is resurrecting a species that has already existed from engineering new species? Cause that's happening. I think if it's possible to contain the species in controlled environments for a period of time to prove that they're not going to be invasive, then I'm all for it.

[Fëanen]

One exception: even if we miraculously are able to totally sequence dinosaur genomes, no raptors or T-Rexes in recreational facilities. Ever. That's just asking for it, as we all know.

[JRPomazon]

One exception: even if we miraculously are able to totally sequence dinosaur genomes, no raptors or T-Rexes in recreational facilities. Ever. That's just asking for it, as we all know.

And as we all know, someone would do it despite the warning signs and cinematic scenes of shock and horror.

Recently extinct species (100 years or so) like the Japanese Wolf, Tasmanian Tiger and the Ivory Billed Woodpecker that were killed off mostly by human interference and hunting should get a chance to be de-extincted if possible, there was no biological reason for their demises. But Wooly Mammoths? Sabertooth tigers? There is not place for them in this day and age, it would be inhumane to introduce these creatures into a world that couldn't sustain them.

Edited by Game Master JRPomazon, 05 May 2013 - 12:31 AM.

[Showsni]

Yeah... I can see trying to reintroduce Passenger Pigeons or something, but mammoths, dinosaurs, pterodactyls et. al... Probably a step too far.

[Egann]

One exception: even if we miraculously are able to totally sequence dinosaur genomes, no raptors or T-Rexes in recreational facilities. Ever. That's just asking for it, as we all know.

And as we all know, someone would do it despite the warning signs and cinematic scenes of shock and horror.

Recently extinct species (100 years or so) like the Japanese Wolf, Tasmanian Tiger and the Ivory Billed Woodpecker that were killed off mostly by human interference and hunting should get a chance to be de-extincted if possible, there was no biological reason for their demises. But Wooly Mammoths? Sabertooth tigers? There is not place for them in this day and age, it would be inhumane to introduce these creatures into a world that couldn't sustain them.

See, I don't agree on both counts. It's a question of what really matters ethically: the individual, the population, the species, or the biome? From the biome's perspective, individual species are relatively inconsequential, especially if they have been absent for some time without notable ill effect. Even if we were the cause of a species going extinct, how does it serve the larger biome to revive them? It doesn't. Furthermore, saying we caused a species's extinction puts us into a moral obligation to revive it can put us into a logical bind. Our stone age ancestors are generally cited as one of the major causes of the Woolly Mammoth's extinction: are we under obligation to undo what our ancestors did 5,000 years ago when the ecosystem is none the worse without them? No.

That doesn't mean I'm against reviving them, but I am against thinking that it's out of an obligation. It's out of scientific curiosity: attempting to revive an extinct species is a great opportunity to test what we know about genetics, specifically inbreeding. It's commonly asserted that a species needs thousands of individuals to survive, but to revive a species affordably we'll have to do it with a tiny fraction of that number. And we don't have that many genetic samples to begin with, either: certainly not several thousand. We need to do it eventually because it is the ultimate practical application of our knowledge of genetics. Considering our track record with introduced species has led to Africanized honey bees, fire ants, and kudzu, revived species probably aren't going to be reintroduced to the wild, at least not without a lot of thought, but the act of reviving them will be a step toward being able to create whole biomes from scratch.

[Selena]

Species Revival Checklist:

Is there a practical reason to bring back a specific animal?

If you are reviving a species just for the sake of being able to do it, you probably shouldn't. Messing around with science for the sake of gathering data is obviously tempting, but this is one of those "playing god" issues. If you're just going to keep the entire population of this revived species in a lab full-time, then it's probably not a good idea to bother. Mother nature voted them off Survivor for a reason.

Generally speaking, though, reintroducing a species is very dangerous and will likely upset the balance that's been established since their extinction. We already have enough trouble - including resistance from humans - reintroducing not-yet-extinct species into regions where they were driven out. Like wolves in North America. Or in Britain, where most of the apex predators (bears, wolves, lynxes) were deliberately hunted into extinction by farmers.

Is it an animal that can adequately survive in the modern climate?

This would be the chief reason why you wouldn't want to bring back anything that thrived during the ice age. Arctic species are in enough trouble as it is with the continued loss of their territory. There wouldn't been enough room or resources to support extinct species in addition to modern endangered species. Mammoths especially, given the range they would need.

How long ago were they made extinct?

Related. You don't want to bring back dinosaurs for a lot of obvious reasons, but even if you brought back one of the gentle little herbivores, you'd have a major problem from the start -- all of the vegetation they ate is just as extinct as they were. Revival candidates should have gone extinct no later than around 100 years ago. This way, we'll know that the world hasn't changed so much that they can no longer survive.

Was their extinction natural or caused by man?

Extinctions are never usually so cut-and-dry as to place 100% of the blame on humans. Had the buffalo gone extinct during the Manifest Destiny period, they would have been an ideal candidate for revival -- because that was a deliberate genocide. If something is going to be revived, then it should be a species that was very clearly made extinct because of human intervention. Like the Hokkaido wolf, which was hunted into extinction for being a "pest" to farmers.



For the most part, though, this technology would be better suited to increasing the populations of species that are on the verge of extinction due to human interference. Like various tiger species. Focusing on preserving what we're about to lose rather than look back on something that's already gone. Not as exciting, but more useful.







...Eh, fuck it, bring back Neanderthals and see what happens.

[Masamune]

...Eh, fuck it, bring back Neanderthals and see what happens.

I want to see this movie. The twist being that Neanderthals were smarter, but gentler (until now!). Our ancestors wiped them out because humans are suspicious bastards.

[Egann]

...Eh, fuck it, bring back Neanderthals and see what happens.

I want to see this movie. The twist being that Neanderthals were smarter, but gentler (until now!). Our ancestors wiped them out because humans are suspicious bastards.

Please. I've already seen enough Geico ads.

[Aewon]

 

I want to see this movie. The twist being that Neanderthals were smarter, but gentler (until now!). Our ancestors wiped them out because humans are suspicious bastards. 

 

They were smarter, actually. Just not as creative, or as social, both of which were contributing factors that led to their extinction.