
We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species – Is It Worth the Cost? - dnetesn
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
======
hprotagonist
Further and more annoying "Ship of Theseus" questions:

If I engineer an animal whose DNA matches that of an extinct species, but it's
raised in captivity, or in another way such that its environment is very
different from that of when the species was not extinct -- have i actually
resurrected a species?

Radiolab had a bit about this w.r.t. whooping cranes. Captive raised birds,
released in the wild, have no ability to raise chicks -- because there have
been no tutors. The existence of adults in the wild is thus totally dependent
on humans raising them in captivity -- is that "really" saving a species from
extinction? [http://www.radiolab.org/story/254840-operation-
migration/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/254840-operation-migration/)

~~~
bpodgursky
I get the argument from a theoretical perspective, but in practice most
recently extinct species have very close relatives we could probably co-opt
into teaching rearing practices if necessary.

(captive) elephants could almost certainly be used to raise cloned wolly
mammoths; there are a variety of Rhino species which could be used to help
raise un-extinct Rhinos.

I don't see why it's not worth trying. Maybe it will work for some species,
and it won't for others, but there have been much largest amounts of money
wasted on much less noble projects.

~~~
hprotagonist
>(captive) elephants could almost certainly be used to raise cloned wolly
mammoths

Their native habitats are about as totally different as you can get without
being underwater. Why do you assume their behaviors will be similar?

~~~
sp332
We know enough about woolly mammoths to know that they behaved and ate in a
roughly similar way to elephants.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth#Palaeobiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth#Palaeobiology)

~~~
M_Grey
I'm really not convinced, especially when you add the role of environment; the
epigenetic factors.

------
endianswap
I know it's brought up in the article, but assuming that the money going
toward reviving extinct species would otherwise go toward protecting
endangered species is silly. I would have no ethical qualms donating money to
bringing back mammoths and would be justifiably angry if that money instead
went to saving the elephants.

Edit: That sounds like I irrationally hate elephants, which isn't the case. I
just value pushing cool new science forward more.

------
the_pangolino
Yes. I'd pay thousands for a pet dodo!

~~~
justicezyx
I think this post does not deserve to be down voted. Objectively, making them
pet is a viable commercial approach.

~~~
comex
I'm not sure about that. Unlike GMO crops, you (probably) can't patent the
dodo… so after a company spends a large amount of money upfront on genetic
engineering, as soon as the first batch of birds goes out, anyone can start
breeding them and undercut them on price.

Maybe they could find something in their specific breed of not-actually-a-dodo
that's patentable.

Or they could only distribute one sex of bird to the public, at least
initially.

~~~
Retric
That's non trivial if you sterilize before sale. Also, if it's a fad then
having a X year head start before sale means you can ramp up much faster than
any competitors.

~~~
patall
But there is also a nontrivial difference between having living stem cells
then and having 100+ year dead feathers now. Plus, Dodos would possible be
breeded by transplanting stem cells into eggs which you might be able to ramp
up quite easily.

------
arsey
I was hoping the article would at least mention Pleistocene Park, an effort to
mitigate climate change that depends on the recently extinct wooly mammoth. If
it had, the question in the title would be better stated: "Can We Afford To
Not?"

Some solid info on the project is here:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleisto...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-
park/517779/)

~~~
5706906c06c
I just watched the Sustainable documentary on Netflix talking about the very
topic. It's fascinating!

------
heydenberk
On this subject, I can't recommend this piece strongly enough: The Narcissism
of De-Extinction [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/culturing-
science/deext...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/culturing-
science/deextinction/)

------
drzaiusapelord
>What if that dream came at the expense of today’s Asian and African
elephants, whose numbers are quickly dwindling because of habitat loss and
poaching?

Humans only had a partial role in the demise of the mammoth. When it comes to
the dodo or the thylacine, I suspect morally it won't matter if that means
less pigeons and dingos in the wild. They're removal from our ecosystem was
artificial and by human hands and the culling of animals that took their place
probably won't raise too many objections.

On a more sci-fi front, I wonder about our future extinction. I wonder if
aliens would later find Earth and try to revive us. Maybe this has happened,
maybe its has happened more than once.

~~~
djsumdog
When humanity eventually goes extinct, there will most likely be a reemergence
of life and growth (if we don't take them out with us).

------
beachbum8029
Life, uh, finds a way.

------
nkoren
> should society devote its limited resources to reversing past wrongs, or on
> preventing future extinctions?

This needs to be called out as the idiotic fallacy that it is. Not sure if
"straw man" quite covers it, but it's close.

Take any two things and posit a zero-sum game between them -- nothing good
ever comes out of this kind of analysis. "Given society's limited resources,
should we be educating our children, or feeding them? A careful analysis
doesn't favor the former."

Oh, sod off. We can do both. If you're going to frame your argument as a zero
sum, then you need to have a very valid reason why it's _actually_ zero-sum.
Otherwise that's just a manipulative way of doing a terrible analysis.

~~~
avar
Even funnier: If this wasn't a dumb fallacy and we grant them that it's zero
sum. Just how many man-hours will be wasted by people reading this NYT article
as opposed to say curing cancer, or actually reviving mammoths?

~~~
coldtea
> _Just how many man-hours will be wasted by people reading this NYT article
> as opposed to say curing cancer, or actually reviving mammoths?_

That's irrelevant, not only because the majority of those readers are not the
same people that would be curing cancer or reviving mammoths, but also because
the resources it talks about are more about budgets, organizational
priorities, etc, and not about missed hours.

------
eli_gottlieb
Well, given how many species we're already driving extinct, we had better be
bloody-well prepared to resurrect _some_ of them!

