Comments on: Your De-Extinction Questions Answered

By: Charity

Charity — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:51:18 +0000

I believe highly that we should bring back species in which have recently been extinct because of the fact that some of these animals maybe key factors in scientific research, but what about using this or cloning research or both to help figure out a solution to the decaying earth with the desertification process. Some of the species that we would benefit the most from bringing back would not survive in the earths rapid desertification path. Do you believe that this would help fix these issues?

By: Levi Fuentes

Levi Fuentes — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:22:12 +0000

I meant to say, “they’ve”, not “I’ve”, lol XD

By: Levi Fuentes

Levi Fuentes — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:20:56 +0000

I think it’s an awesome idea to bring back extinct species but with some terms and conditions:

We should start with the animals we have recently extinct and work our way back – start with the golden toad, ivory – billed woodpecker, etc. Once we’ve learned their behavior and DNA sequence, we can return them back in the wild to try and restore their natural balance because it’s been only a short time that I’ve been “out of commission”.

I’m a little more hesitant in bringing back the wooly mammoth, Smilodon, mastodons, and ground sloths because these animals wouldn’t survive in the modern world, especially with global warming since these animals were from the Ice Age. It would be cool to know their behavior and husbandry but where would we put these animals once we’re done with them? I have a feeling some people, after having brought them back to life, will either make them zoo attractions or, worse, kill them.

All in all, I’m for “de-extinction” for animals we’ve killed in less than 10,000 years. Anything beyond that is a little precarious.

By: Oliver van den Ende

Oliver van den Ende — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:41:33 +0000

Regarding Church’s passenger pigeon resurrection idea; why use a rock pigeon if the closest living relative is actually the mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura)?

By: Phil Dyble

Phil Dyble — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 16:06:49 +0000

I know it’s impossible and would only be done for nothing more than human curiosity, plus it’s ethically wrong, but I would really like to see a living, breathing T. Rex.

By: Vrushali

Vrushali — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:41:12 +0000

There was a very interesting question that a conservationist had raised in an article on natgeo, will try and find that link, but the gist of it was that once we start bringing back extinct animals, or show that it is possible, how would it affect a conservationist’s efforts, in the sense that those who already lack any sensitivity when it comes to preservation of species & consequently the ecosystem, won’t they get even more brazen about their acts? Say those governments that promote & validate poaching and are in a way arm twisted by forums like CITES into conserving endangered species, wouldn’t they block such efforts altogether or refuse to co-operate once they realise that it might now be possible to bring back those species which have gone extinct? And won’t more and more people start losing all sanctity for life & various lifeforms once we start creating them in labs?

Another point that merits consideration is the funds that come the way of science. With economies strained the world-over & governments spending ever-increasing amounts on defence systems, there is less and less money that is being set aside for scientific ventures. So in a way it really is an either-or situation when it comes to deciding between whether we want to bring back extinct species to life or if those funds won’t be better utilised in making the earth a more habitable place for those species that still exist, isn’t it?

By: christopher

christopher — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:02:19 +0000

when will you write an article next?

By: Howard A. Landman

Howard A. Landman — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:01:46 +0000

Passenger Pigeon would have commercial potential; it is reported to have tasted better than chicken, and sold for more per pound in the markets of New York. Even a small “gourmet” market in its meat could support a decent-sized breeding population. But this raises the question of whether someone could patent an extinct species to secure exclusive rights upon de-extinction.

By: Homer Dodge

Homer Dodge — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:50:59 +0000

I would definitely like to see the resurrection of the Saber Toothed Salmon “Oncorhynchus (Smilodonichthys) rastrosus”.

It would be a superior answer to increasing fish production than Frankenfish!

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:44:14 +0000

Carl, I enjoyed your thoughtful commentary from this conference. One question I was hoping to hear more about: in the discussion about whether it’s ethical to de-extinct a species, why is the notion of a “species” considered ethically privileged?

I mean, in the philosophical literature we assign special status to the notion of an individual. If an individual is killed, there is in some cases a moral imperative to undo that if we could. And I can see a utilitarian argument for trying to enrich food chains or simply study a long-dead organism.

But did anyone discuss the rationale for assigning this special ethical status to a species?

[CZ: Nobody talked about that explicitly. Kate Jones, a British conservation biologist, discussed the idea of resurrecting species that belonged to entire lineages that have mostly become extinct. Think about the few species of lungfish left on Earth. If they go, then we've just lost a 400-million-year-old lineage. Rodents wouldn't get a high priority if we used this criterion for picking species to revive.]