Mike Benton on bringing extinct animals back to life

[Crackington]

Interesting article by Mike Benton on resurrecting extinct animals:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/07/the-big-idea-should-we-bring-extinct-creatures-back-to-life

[stargatedalek]

And as usual people taking the worst possible read of Jurassic Park at face value. The dinosaurs weren't the problem! They're just animals! It was always meant to be about capitalism and people cutting corners ignoring safety and animal ethics for profit.

Jurassic Park is, despite the subject matter, largely irrelevant to realistic talks about de-extinction. Aside from some of the animal rights talking points brought up in the Lost World (ensuring de-extinct animals get protections, etc) but those apply to GMO animals more broadly anyway.

[Bread]

[Crackington]

Well that was another question raised in JP and possibly what Benton is alluding to in the article, whether we should bring back extinct animals at all?

At least Ian Malcolm is asking those questions before it all goes wrong and pointing out how it's impossible to control things- nature finds a way.

Personally,I'd like to see these billionaires, fictional or not, put their (our?) money into saving the extant species we have, ourselves and the planet, rather than trying to resurrect the dead, go to Mars etc.

[andrewsaurus rex]

all forms of exploration are wonderful and fascinating, and I feel that bringing back extinct animals is just an extension of exploration.

However, the problems are so numerous that I doubt it will be possible for a very long time, if ever.   Even if the major genetic problems can be solved, how do you solve all the less tangible problems, such as the animals not having immunity to modern viruses and bacteria, being able to digest their food properly with a whole different spectrum of bacteria in their gut than what they evolved with, and a host of other issues.  Animal rights would have to be paramount, or i'd be dead set against it and in the long run, those rights may become more difficult to ensure as the technology propagates..

However, the animals running amuck a la Jurassic Park, breeding when they shouldn't be able to etc.......those are not real concerns since safety procedures would be easy to develop and maintain.

I say bring it on, if you can, just bear the above concerns in mind.

[stargatedalek]

Well that was another question raised in JP and possibly what Benton is alluding to in the article, whether we should bring back extinct animals at all?

At least Ian Malcolm is asking those questions before it all goes wrong and pointing out how it's impossible to control things- nature finds a way.

Personally,I'd like to see these billionaires, fictional or not, put their (our?) money into saving the extant species we have, ourselves and the planet, rather than trying to resurrect the dead, go to Mars etc.

I hard disagree with both of these points. I don't think Ian Malcolm actually brought up any good points after the first movie, and even in that movie, he had "good" points in an abstract sense of responsibility and negligence. Dinosaurs aren't Xenomorphs, they aren't going to destroy the world. Jurassic Park didn't fail because "nature can't be controlled" or because of literally anything to do directly with the dinosaurs. It failed because the people designing and operating it cut corners, they automated too many systems, they took advantage of their employees, and they did not establish proper safety precautions and backups. Jurassic Park did not fail because of dinosaurs or nature, it failed because its designers didn't bother to account for nature.

You could easily design an actual dinosaur park with proper moats in the exhibits, actual backup procedures, and without being overly reliant on automation. Power goes out? Oh well, backup generators. Backup generators go out? Oh well, dinosaurs can't suddenly start climbing vertical concrete surfaces. If Jurassic Park was built by people who actually understood animals instead of by tech gurus, it would never have failed.


While I also think maned missions to mars are silly, and I would like to see billionaires spending more money on true sustainable technology projects like long term nuclear power and urban farming, billionaires aren't spending money on de-extinction projects either. Elon Musk is too busy sinking one of the most recognizable corporate brands in the world into the mud, reinventing trains every other week, and suing the employees he fired en-mass, to donate money to reviving mammoths.

De-extinction projects, as well as true space exploration projects like the James Webb space telescope, are being run by real scientists, often on tight budgets as if they were passion projects. Science is not linear and there is no reason all of our efforts should be focused on a single aspect of it. People should explore and work on what they're passionate about. This goes for social issues too! We shouldn't just give a free pass to human rights abuses because we haven't solved global hunger, etc.

[andrewsaurus rex]

well, I have to disagree about space exploration and putting humans on Mars being a waste.  Aside from eventual tangible economic benefits to our planet through the accessing of valuable resources from space, if our species is to survive long term, then we are going to have to be able to go into space and populate it.  I'm talking very long term here.  But it has to start somewhere and at some point or it won't happen at all.  In the here and now, many valuable inventions and discoveries have been made as a result of space exploration that have resulted in tangible benefits to us all.

There's more to life than surviving...exploration, discovery...those matter too.  Very much..   I would argue paleontology is a far greater waste of money than space exploration.  That money should be spent on urban farming, alternate energy etc. before space exploration funds.

[stargatedalek]

I just don't understand what there is to be gained right now from maned mars missions that vehicle missions can't do. If the point is testing colony structures why not do that with the poles instead? Far safer and more ethical for the people living there should they decide they want to return, or happen to have children, etc.

[andrewsaurus rex]

one point to putting people on Mars that I can see is just to be able to do it.  It's one thing to test and theorize and plan and experiment, but until you actually accomplish the goal in question, it's difficult to progress further.  If human kind is to venture into the solar system and beyond one day, then incremental steps have to be taken.

And those next incremental steps are putting a base on the moon and landing humans on Mars with the intention of a permanent Mars base one day as well.  From there, over the decades and centuries they can be used as springboards to further exploration outward.  But those initial steps have to be taken at some point.   So why not now?   And if not now, when?   There will always, always be reasons not to.

[stargatedalek]

I disagree rather vehemently. If we put people there now, they can't come back. I fundamentally don't think that is ethical, what if they accidentally have children? The child did not agree to live on bleeding Mars! I think the incremental step is better spacecraft, spacecraft that can reliably land for reuse, and then temporary scientific bases. Jumping to colonies before we have the infrastructure to get people home from them is insane.

[andrewsaurus rex]

well, i'm not saying do it this instant.  Obviously it has to be a practical operation.  Nobody is asking for volunteers to be stranded on Mars.  I'm saying we should do it as soon as practically and safely possible.  But human missions to Mars and back will be possible in the next several years and I am saying it should be done, despite the cost, because it's worth it and necessary in the long run.

[Crackington]

Very interesting debate @stargatedalek and A @andrewsaurus rex - you have both made very thought provoking points.

I have nuanced views on whether we should be investing in space exploration. If its to advance science and understanding then absolutely- so I'm OK with projects like the Hubble telescope, Mars Rover, on Earth the Hadron collider etc (not that my views have any influence really anyway!).

I'm far more concerned where this moves away from scientific enquiry and falls into billionaire vanity projects. Their proposals are often ill thought out and dangerous (one way tickets to Mars?) as Stargate Dalek points out.

I also wonder about the motives, aspirations and ethics of these people. They've made their fortunes through avoiding taxes and exploiting their work forces. The social media giants enable and encourage conspiracy theories and authoritarian views which  do a great deal of damage to people, democracy and science too. Look how they have hindered and undermined acceptance and understanding of climate change.

We probably have less than 10 years to avoid a catastrophic climate disaster and this is why I don't feel its the right time to divert precious energy, attention and resources into these projects.

We only have one earth and its time to focus all our efforts in saving it.

[andrewsaurus rex]

interesting points.   I am confident that human kind will survive our current climate change..  History has shown repeatedly what people are capable of when push comes to shove.   And despite the dumb azz non-believers who think climate change is a hoax, even though it's happening right in front of their faces (lots of people who died from Covid didn't believe they had it either), there will be more than enough common sense around to save the day.

But your concerns about the earth also support my viewpoint.  One day, there will be no escaping the earth becoming unlivable , even if that day is millions or billions of years away.  And if human kind is to survive, we will have to move out of here and onto other worlds.  It would be nice to have that option .  And it all starts now with the tiny steps being taken.  If we don't take them, then we will never be able to leave our earthbound existence.   As I said, there will always be reasons to put off space exploration.

Plus there are the host of benefits in the here and now.  Scientific discovery (if you like paleontology than it would be somewhat hypocritical to say it's ok to spend money on that but not space exploration),  access to valuable resources in space, technological progress and so on.  And if the billionaires are willing to spend some of their fortunes on it great.   Better that then yet another super yacht.  If you think most of them will spend that money on the betterment of human kind instead........you will be sorely disappointed.

[stargatedalek]

well, i'm not saying do it this instant.  Obviously it has to be a practical operation.  Nobody is asking for volunteers to be stranded on Mars.  I'm saying we should do it as soon as practically and safely possible.  But human missions to Mars and back will be possible in the next several years and I am saying it should be done, despite the cost, because it's worth it and necessary in the long run.

Unfortunately billionaires are in fact asking for volunteers that they can strand on mars and have been for a while.

But yes, it's not like they're spending it on anything better. Just a shame they aren't going to be putting their mouths where their money is and moving to mars alongside the scientists they've enticed into sacrificing themselves for someone else's vanity project.

[andrewsaurus rex]

wow, I wasn't aware of that.  That's crazy.   And somewhat unnecessary, as  trips to Mars and back will be feasible in the next decade or so, most likely.  Is the plan that they are literally going to be stranded there for good or just for several years?    The window to fly to or from Mars only occurs every few years, when it's close enough to earth.  What are the stranded people supposed to do for food?

If you haven't seen it, watch the movie The Martian.  The science in it is reasonably solid (although they pretty much ignore the danger of cosmic rays which is one of the  major hurdles travelling to/from and in living on Mars, the storm is greatly exaggerated in potency and the fact gravity on Mars is about 1/3 that of earth's is not portrayed). 

[Crackington]

interesting points.  I am confident that human kind will survive our current climate change..  History has shown repeatedly what people are capable of when push comes to shove.  And despite the dumb azz non-believers who think climate change is a hoax, even though it's happening right in front of their faces (lots of people who died from Covid didn't believe they had it either), there will be more than enough common sense around to save the day.

But your concerns about the earth also support my viewpoint.  One day, there will be no escaping the earth becoming unlivable , even if that day is millions or billions of years away.  And if human kind is to survive, we will have to move out of here and onto other worlds.  It would be nice to have that option .  And it all starts now with the tiny steps being taken.  If we don't take them, then we will never be able to leave our earthbound existence.  As I said, there will always be reasons to put off space exploration.

Plus there are the host of benefits in the here and now.  Scientific discovery (if you like paleontology than it would be somewhat hypocritical to say it's ok to spend money on that but not space exploration),  access to valuable resources in space, technological progress and so on.  And if the billionaires are willing to spend some of their fortunes on it great.  Better that then yet another super yacht.  If you think most of them will spend that money on the betterment of human kind instead........you will be sorely disappointed.

Just to clarify I'm not against many of the projects exploring space, the Hubble telescope has been amazing and transformative and these genuine scientific projects should absolutely continue.

However, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the governments and ruling elites will wake up and act on time on climate change. We need action now before its too late (look at Hawaii this week  ).

As for the billionaires, I agree that they won't do anything unless its in their own interests*, so I don't think I could be any more disappointed by them! I hope world governments get together to more rigidly regulate them, make sure they pay their fair tax loads, improve their workforce rights, pay and conditions and break up monopolies where necessary. I'd like to see them be a lot poorer so stranding astronauts on Mars isn't an option!

I agree that the Martian is a good film though - really enjoyed it!

*One would have thought they'd realise that doing something about preserving this amazing, already livable, planet was very much in their interests though.

[EmperorDinobot]

Humans aren't supposed to live anywhere but on Earth. Even if we terraformed the place, or made prefab shelters, or anything like that, the only way for humankind to exist outside of this planet, even if it is a planet that's 99.9% similar to Earth, would be through some kind of electronic consciousness.

The one other way to live in a world that's 99.9% like this one would involve more than just terraforming, but for us to change our bodies biologically, and to change the biology in the area to match our living parameters. Think of how graft vs. host disease affects a person, The planet's defenses, especially its biological ones will try to kill any settlers, even if they're what we construe as "peaceful", We would have to change our bodies at a biomolecular level rather than use our machines to sustain a human body. I mean we can, but that's a short term solution.  But to be honest, what life may exist out there would be beyond our comprehension, nothing we've imagined and nothing we will ever imagine.

[Stegotyranno420]

I believe Mankind will be able to conquer the stars at somepoint.
I also think reviving dinosaurs will be cool.

[Eatmycar]

I agree with Crackington for the most part. We're actually ravaging our planet so much right now and we're driving animals to extinction each year. Can we, oh, I don't know, use this technology on animals we've recently wiped out or are driving to extinction?

I can think of plenty of creatures that need to be saved before we worry about putting a Tyrannosaurus Rex in a zoo.

[Stegotyranno420]

E @Eatmycar, that's boring. For cares if dome corals and snails dye, I want a big ferocious beast that wreaks havoc on everything due to poor management.


Okay, seriously though, why can't we have both. How hard is it to conquer the galaxy, create dinosaurs and still have elephants?