Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
March 22, 2013
Throughout humankind’s history, we’ve driven species after species extinct: the passenger pigeon, the Eastern cougar, the dodo … But now, says Stewart Brand, we have the technology (and the biology) to bring back species that humanity wiped out. So — should we? Which ones? He asks a big question whose answer is closer than you may think.
— TED
Video Source: TED
Related:
Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
Comments (11)
by GatorALLin
…I am waiting to see the future version of South Park where someone in North Korea decides to bring back 30 copies of Elvis and 30 copies of Marilyn Monroe and 30 copies of Einstein. Yeah, they would just be copies… but might be interesting. If you could bring back famous people from our recent past, who would they be?
by George
For a satirical look at de-extinction, see the ResonedRetort.com article, “Scientists to Revive Extinct Species” here: http://wp.me/p3fGBx-6b
by Vin
CONS:
Animals are slaves to their dna.
Animals, for better or worse, have no choices but to exist, they are a collection of receptors and reward mechanism that serve dna
In nature, animals undergo a struggle for life which they didn’t opt for voluntarily. Brutal lingering death; brutal lingering stress in the face of impending death; pain, trauma and suffering; getting eaten alive, scarred, scratched, torn, stressed is the norm.
Animals revived (like the Burcardo kid in the vid) will suffer unfathomable deformity and pain at least initially or always to some degree.
Genome recombination for some long-extinct species will vastly exceed the ‘natural rate of allele occurrence’? , So more likely result in ‘shock and trauma’? Unless some kind of phased introduction is done?
Their ecosystems cannot be reproduced, only approximated and current habitats may not be adequately ‘reversible’?
There can be no assurance they will not be hunted to extinction again.
These animals were driven to extinction for the benefit of humans.It was exploitation; Now they will be resurrected because ‘we miss and love them’. They can have no say. This is exploitation repeated. Rather a tough love they’d rather be better off without?
It’s surely bad enough that animals must suffer as above to generate the biosphere humans need (at least livestock can be humanely farmed and slaughtered but a lot of these revivals won’t have that).
Generally, humans caring for animals is problematic since we cannot communicate with them in the manner they might have evolved to be communicated with or at worse barely adequetly? (this is an argument against pets too I guess).
Religions will object because they will insist it is playing god.
PROS
Science will be served (ok this is always a big plus)
Religion will insist this is wrong since they’ll say it is playing god. (sorry couldn’t resist putting this under PRO too)
People can gawk at the extinct species living again while eating popcorn, sugary treats, beer and farting in zoos.
There will be a sequel to ‘Jurassic Park’ that will divert money and resource into the entertainment industry.
Some other people will get quite rich.
Some rich people will get choice of some extra exotic pets.
______________
What have I missed? What is the short version of my senile ramblings above?
Personally, i am against this, at least on a large scale, until we have settled dead planets that have been terraformed. And until animal suffering in the procedure and aftermath has been reasonably minimalised (whatever that means).
by Pete
RE … until we have settled dead planets that have been terraformed.
I suggest this other solution. Please Google “Globus Cassus”.
by Vin
That’s new to me and interesting, thanks! Only I can’t help thinking its rather burning the proverbial bridge doing that before other planets or habitats are an option too: will not these be more feasible first?
by Cybernettr
I would like to see the dodo brought back! As for the Neanderthal, it would be interesting to see what they looked like but not to try to bring them back. We have enough problems with diversity as it is, and the Neanderthals would likely have a very, very hard time fitting into modern society.
by dbamford
Neanderthals would clearly have boundless opportunities practicing law:
http://videosift.com/video/SNL-Unfrozen-Caveman-Lawyer
by Pete
Sounds like the concept of “lazurogen” from Orion’s Arm.
http://orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oaeg-view-article&egart_uid=4823993f36e02
As well, I am not as worried about the “habitation problem” (the problem of where to relocate the resurrected species).
The Solar System (and the rest of the Universe) is a vast place. A few terraformed planets and other forms of habitats (Stanford Toruses, O’Neil Cylinders and even more) will provide the dwelling place for such resurrected lifeforms.
by Winslow Strong
Why no mention of Neanderthals? That would be by far the most scientifically important species to bring back.
by Bri
By bring them back do you mean to inhabit their ancestral territories? Maybe perhaps to inhabit a zoo? All the great land animals that they traditionally hunted are extinct. Should we set up a reserve? Maybe they would want to join our civilization. Should a neandertal have the right to vote? Maybe perhaps run for public office? Even to be president? Some of the extinct species would be better served if they were computer simulations. We have to fix our ecosystems first and then figure out how to integrate the others back in.
by smb12321
The Neanderthals will not be cognizant of their prior existence. Their psychological outlook on politics, eating and living will be what they encounter. It’s like foreign refugees who viewthe US as almost alien when they arrived yet adapt quickly.