Elon Musk & Jurassic Park

[Ezikot]

Thank you, @Tyrannosauron
It seems that book tries to address a lot of questions about de-extinction, but I have read just few pages because, as @amargasaurus cazaui wrote, it's a bit pricey.
Would you like to share with us what those essays suggested to you? And, of course, your thoughts on the matter? 

I think it's a problematic field, being a matter of bioethics more than a matter of science, but I wouldn't say I'm against the idea of "recreating" some recently disappeared species and, maybe, some more distant in time species (mammoth & friends). 

[andrewsaurus rex]

not trying to stir the pot here but i'm curious as to why you and presumably  many others are against recreating species that have gone extinct, whether they be recent or from millions of years ago. 

[stargatedalek]

not trying to stir the pot here but i'm curious as to why you and presumably  many others are against recreating species that have gone extinct, whether they be recent or from millions of years ago.

Can't speak for others, but I'm against it from an animal rights perspective, though this is far from unique to de-extinction and is really a broad distrust of GMO policies and copyright.

[dyno77]

Personally i dont see the point of bring dinosaurs or mammoths back. They wouldn't be exactly the same as in the past and they would most likely end up very ill not living long...
Ever since jurassic park came out the media has been on and of with this every few years saying its possible then,its not possible,then its possible again...technology , is still very basic despite the advances in some areas...
The few attempts to bring them back have largely failed as far as im aware ,because its very very difficult esp with current technology....it might be another century before there is any breakthroughs...
But what would the point be in the end only for the mammoth to be sick and die in a few months because of some type of genetic malfunction..which is most likely...and it wouldn't grow very big either...

[andrewsaurus rex]

I gather that is the one of the main concerns from those who object to bringing back extinct animals....the resulting animal(s)' quality of life.   That's something i'd never considered, other than wondering about the lack of necessary digestive bacteria and their immune systems not being in tune with modern day pathogens. being factors in them being able to live at all.

On the flip side, again not trying to stir the pot, I do see lots of point to bringing them back from a scientific/learning about them point of view.  Granted they would not be exactly the same, nor would their behaviour be, but there would still be much that could be learned about them that goes beyond any ability from examining fragmented fossils that are thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years old.

I suspect it will be possible to resurrect the extinct, some day in the distant future and discussions like these will kick into high gear.. 

[stargatedalek]

If we can bring them back, we can modify them to live among modern pathologies, air conditions, etc.

For me when I say this is an animal rights concern, I mean that these animals would be copyrighted, as they would be considered GMOs. GMO animals are not regulated enough in frankly any of the ways they need to be, quality of life, environmental concerns, consumer safety, monopolistic powers to companies large enough to lobby for ownership, the list of potential abuses goes on.

[Ezikot]

For me, every species has the right to exist, so a species that would still be here but it's not because of us is a legit candidate for de-exctintion.
(we have to remember that we forced to exctintion other species not just directly or mainly, i.e. hunting, but also indirectly or partially, i.e. pollution or introducing exogenous species).
Anyway, as I wrote, it's a problematic field and there are a lot of questions that need answers, but I wouldn't be against the de-exctintion of species disappeared in the last few centuries because of humans.
(anyway it would be just symbolic, because we often talk about big or famous chordata, but we all know that a lot of other species, belonging to other phyla, went extinct in the last few years).

[andrewsaurus rex]

you bring up an interesting point.  we humans are usually set aside from the natural world, but in truth, we are part of it.  We have evolved from nature just like any other animal.  Our main benefit from evolution is our brain (and our thumbs too).  Because of our brain our tools have gotten more sophisticated (guns, atom bombs, smart phones) but they are still tools and we are still products of evolution.

If T Rex had forced certain species into extinction, then I think most would look upon that as nature taking its course.  But if we humans force species into extinction, it is viewed as unnatural (and by some an abomination).  All it really is, at its essence, is a super predator (humans) evolving that is so highly evolved it can extinct every other species, if it so chooses.

Now, i'm merely bringing this up as an objective point.  I'm all for animal rights, i'm a vegetarian and I fully support all attempts to preserve extant species in the world.  But from a 'who should be de-extincted' argument point of view...I think every species is as valid as any other, whether driven into extinction by a comet hitting the earth or by us nasty ole humans.......because it's all nature at work....even though it may seem unnatural when it's humans.

[Ezikot]

My english is not that good and I'm probably using the term "de-extinction" in a wrong way,
but, when I talk of de-extinction, I'm talking of re-creating the moa, not a moa (to name one) and talking of  re-introducing the species in nature. I don't think you would re-create a species so distant in time (dinosaurs or others) and re-introduce that species in nature.

[andrewsaurus rex]

another interesting point.  I think that for the purposes of this thread, most have in mind a zoo type setting for the animals that have been brought back

re-introducing extinct species back into nature would not be practical at all, unless it is done with species that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so and even then...

however zoos are doing sort of that type of thing right now.  Many zoos are breeding animals in captivity, animals which are now extinct in the wild, to reintroduce populations back into nature.

[Subduction]

Ignoring the ethical and potentially ecosystem collapsing side, I don't think it would be possible to bring back creatures older than the Pleistocene. Correct me if I'm wrong but DNA can't survive for more than a million years. And even if you managed to find dinosaur or some other critter's dna, you'd have to compensate for the missing DNA. So at that point, you wouldn't even have a dinosaur. You'd have a genetic chimera meant to represent that species. Which defeats the whole point of trying to bring them back. But I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts here! It's interesting to see what people think.

(The "Haven't you seen Jurassic Park/World" comments irk a bit because the dinosaurs in that franchise aren't actual animals. They're man-eating  genetically modified monsters. Talking about the carnivores of course. If an actual Jurassic Park was possible, the dinos or whatever you brought back would more or less behave like actual animals.)

[Papi-Anon]

One so-called 'de-extinction' project that always fascinates me are the numerous different attempts to back-breed the auroch. From the Heck cattle to the many more modern projects involving more advanced techniques, I find this quest having a relatively legitimate reason: wildlife maintanence. I had read in a National Geographic some time back that a reason to back-breed aurochs was to deal with invasive vegetation (not kudzu, but something just as pesky in Europe, I just can't remember) that was originally kept in control by the ancient cows munching away at it but has in the recent century or so made a comeback. Only concern of course is displacing extant herbivores and possibly the cattle becoming invasive themselves with greens that do NOT need trimming back.

As a kid I loved the idea of de-extinction because 'it'd be so cool', but as an adult I only can think of a few moderately decent reasons to rationally pursue it. Along with re-introducing organisms to combat invasive species, I would be keen to bringing back certain megafauna strictly for food production. Large flightless birds like ostriches and emus are farm-raised today for poultry and eggs, why not Moa and Aepyornis too? I'd be against bringing back mammoths for this though, considering how intelligent their living kin are which brings up certain ethical issues in itself with sentient life. But given the trial and error it would take to do all this, why not just frankenstein new megafauna livestock through genetic manipulation to give greater food product yields instead? At least with base extant organisms one could have several aspects of the creatures understood already to know what to expect and what will not work. But, then again there's the risk of escapes specimens crossbreeding with wild relatives and potential hybrids being dangerous for the wild.

[Flaffy]

I think we should test the viability of current, ongoing projects like "Pleistocene Park" and various other re-introduction programs first.