http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?hpw&rref=magazine&_r=0
An interesting article in the NYT describing bringing extinct species back to life.
The philosophical argument is why do we want to do it, are there any benefits apart from the gee wiz factor.
All you can do is put them in zoos really, and a lot of the extinctions had nothing to do with man, creatures have come and gone for millennium.
> All you can do is put them in zoos really
In the article they explain that at least for the passenger-pigeon the idea is to re-introduce flocks into the wild. They admit that is a long term goal, but that’s what they are aiming for.
“We are as gods and might as well get good at it,” as the article states :)
Why wouldn’t those species be hunted to extinction again?
The philosophical argument is why do we want to do it, are there any benefits apart from the gee wiz factor.
it isn’t just a gee-whizzzzz factor with these projects, bit like cloning Dolly, it is also getting the bugs out of procedures. who knows what other scenarios these techniques can be used for.
Surely laws could be introduced offering them a protected species status. Going by what has happened in the Northern Territory and the crocodile, that can certainly work.
Why wouldn’t those species be hunted to extinction again?
because we have learned that isn’t a nice way to treat other creatures.
Dugongs and turtles are protected yet hunted for an illegal meat trade We probably wouldn’t hunt pigeons for food anymore, maybe for sport, maybe just to see how many times we can make something extinct. Or maybe they will survive just in captivity.
I don’t see why we would want to bring back the woolly Mammoth… seems silly.
the pigeon sure, its extinction is within man’s memory..
Also, de-extinction is surely worth a better term. I suggest re-enlivening, but we’ll need to embiggen the natural habitat to accommodate the species.
Why waste money bringing something back when there’s a large number of at risk populations already. Wouldn’t the ROI be better for keeping what we have alive?
Why waste money bringing something back when there’s a large number of at risk populations already. Wouldn’t the ROI be better for keeping what we have alive?
poikilotherm said:
Why waste money bringing something back when there’s a large number of at risk populations already. Wouldn’t the ROI be better for keeping what we have alive?
They’re doing that as well. The article mentions white rhinos, elephants and pandas.
Divine Angel said:
poikilotherm said:
Why waste money bringing something back when there’s a large number of at risk populations already. Wouldn’t the ROI be better for keeping what we have alive?
They’re doing that as well. The article mentions white rhinos, elephants and pandas.
Didn’t say they weren’t, just that it’s probably using up funds that could go elsewhere and get better results.
This has been tried before, with the Thylacine (the last of which died more than 20 years after the last passenger pigeon) in Australia. The main problem is that DNA is so unstable that it doesn’t survive after the organism dies.
Wocky said:
This has been tried before, with the Thylacine (the last of which died more than 20 years after the last passenger pigeon) in Australia. The main problem is that DNA is so unstable that it doesn’t survive after the organism dies.
Where do they get the mitochondria from for these experiments?
Wocky said:
This has been tried before, with the Thylacine (the last of which died more than 20 years after the last passenger pigeon) in Australia. The main problem is that DNA is so unstable that it doesn’t survive after the organism dies.
Yeah, that is all addressed within the article. The scientists involved agree that they are never going to be 100% correct on their DNA sequencing.
poikilotherm said:
Where do they get the mitochondria from for these experiments?
Seems like they’re adding chunks of similar DNA to the genome sequencing of the extinct animal.
“Should scientists succeed in culturing a band-tailed-pigeon germ cell, they will begin to tinker with its genetic code. Biologists describe this as a “cut-and-paste job.” They will replace chunks of band-tailed-pigeon DNA with synthesized chunks of passenger-pigeon DNA, until the cell’s genome matches their working passenger-pigeon genome. They will be aided in this process by a fantastical new technology, invented by George Church, with the appropriately runic name of MAGE (Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering). MAGE is nicknamed the “evolution machine” because it can introduce the equivalent of millions of years of genetic mutations within minutes. After MAGE works its magic, scientists will have in their petri dishes living passenger-pigeon cells, or at least what they will call passenger-pigeon cells.”
Probably it can be assumed, that (nature’s) evolution will (and is already perhaps) seen as slow and wasteful (through an ideological lense), and down the track that there has been any history at all will become inconvenient. All of nature’s and man’s works are an exchange with the oblivion (displacement), and somewhere down the track this will evolve into a faded, hardly recognized and broadly unadmittable way and reality of future ‘existence’.
People will be sold into a picture of the rich plurality of life, while something else is delivered.
Peak Warming Man said:
The philosophical argument is why do we want to do it, are there any benefits apart from the gee wiz factor.
All you can do is put them in zoos really, and a lot of the extinctions had nothing to do with man, creatures have come and gone for millennium.
We spend billions of dollars annually on action movies purely for the gee wiz factor. All you can do is look at them really.
>We spend billions of dollars annually on action movies purely for the gee wiz factor.
Largely i’d expect that industry, and media to generalize, are fundamentally advertizing the power to intimidate, and that is internalized as normal and accepted as entertainment.
>>We spend billions of dollars annually on action movies purely for the gee wiz factor. All you can do is look at them really.
Although Die Hard 4 made me think about our increasing vulnerability to cyber attack.
>why do we want to do it
To see what they taste like.
Bubblecar said:
>why do we want to do itTo see what they taste like.
Dear oh dear.
Personally, I see no point in recreating extinct species unless the animals can live naturally in their own habitat. I would think there would be more than a little opposition in having gigantic mammoths tramping through people’s gardens in northern Europe.
What’s the point of anything?
dv said:
What’s the point of anything?
.Isn’t it the opposite end to the blunt end?
dv said:
What’s the point of anything?
Sharpens things up and brings them into focus.
dv said:
What’s the point of anything?
Life is what you make it.
Bubblecar said:
dv said:
What’s the point of anything?
Life is what you make it.
.
Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat?
I would think there would be more than a little opposition in having gigantic mammoths tramping through people’s gardens in northern Europe.
————————————————————-
Well yes, imagine the foot prints in the newly laid turf of wealthy land owners left by something the same size of a elephant.
Leave them in Africa where the turf is dirt…
> describing bringing extinct species back to life. … The philosophical argument is why do we want to do it
There’s no ethical dilemma there. Loss of biodiversity is always a bad thing, and this is how we start to reverse that trend. Bringing extinct species back to life is not just of scientific interest, not just potentially medically useful, its an ethical necessity.
mollwollfumble said:
> describing bringing extinct species back to life. … The philosophical argument is why do we want to do itThere’s no ethical dilemma there. Loss of biodiversity is always a bad thing, and this is how we start to reverse that trend. Bringing extinct species back to life is not just of scientific interest, not just potentially medically useful, its an ethical necessity.
But not for the animal and is it really ethical?
mollwollfumble said:
> describing bringing extinct species back to life. … The philosophical argument is why do we want to do itThere’s no ethical dilemma there. Loss of biodiversity is always a bad thing.
are we bcak in chta