The problem I have with all of this, is that there were and awful lot of “coulds” in this post. And is it wise to insert extinct species into the present day environment? We have absolutely no idea how they will disrupt the current ecosystem.
The problem with de-extinction projects is that geneticists assume all species' behaviour is inherent. Any ethologist will tell you it is not. Much is learned. We can only guess extinct species' behaviour based on extant species. This may be useful, detrimental, or somewhere in between. If mammoths are anything like their modern counterparts, the herd will rely on the wisdom of the matriarch to know where and when to find food, what is non-toxic, what is medicinal, when to travel, etc. And what are the species specific learned behaviours of dire wolves (or any other de-extinct species)? Who will teach these animals? Not us, because we don't know.
Very good analysis indeed. The first thing I thought about was the purpose of this, given how they made the whole de-extinction thing much more appealing to the media – the fact that they named one of the wolves Khaleesi, and George R.R. Martin's funding says it all. In the end, it's all about money, but I understand that nowadays, if you can get people personally involved in your project, the chances of it going further increase drastically. Hopefully, this project can proceed with the right intentions.
It's difficult to separate fact from fiction these days. But I wonder about the ethics of the intention and the potential consequences of "de-extinction". 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' and when it comes to technology, unforseen fall-out figures high (who envisaged the way the world has been changed just from the one idea of a "horseless-carriage"? ... [sold to the general public by the way as a means to clean up the streets from horse-pooh pollution]).
Very interesting. I wonder about the altruistic claims. I think scientists do things because they can, so they can publish papers and bask in accolades. I'm a science fiction and horror fan, so I'm interested in the unforeseen consequences as well. Thank you for sharing this interesting story.
What caused red wolves to become so endangered? Are these new wolves to live in freedom or kept captive somewhere? As long as humans have so little respect for our fellow species as to take pleasure in harming/killing them and continue destroying their habitat it seems cruel to bring extinct species back if they're just bound to suffer and/or be killed. All that money and effort may be well better spent in protecting existing animals and their habitats.
The problem I have with all of this, is that there were and awful lot of “coulds” in this post. And is it wise to insert extinct species into the present day environment? We have absolutely no idea how they will disrupt the current ecosystem.
The problem with de-extinction projects is that geneticists assume all species' behaviour is inherent. Any ethologist will tell you it is not. Much is learned. We can only guess extinct species' behaviour based on extant species. This may be useful, detrimental, or somewhere in between. If mammoths are anything like their modern counterparts, the herd will rely on the wisdom of the matriarch to know where and when to find food, what is non-toxic, what is medicinal, when to travel, etc. And what are the species specific learned behaviours of dire wolves (or any other de-extinct species)? Who will teach these animals? Not us, because we don't know.
Very good analysis indeed. The first thing I thought about was the purpose of this, given how they made the whole de-extinction thing much more appealing to the media – the fact that they named one of the wolves Khaleesi, and George R.R. Martin's funding says it all. In the end, it's all about money, but I understand that nowadays, if you can get people personally involved in your project, the chances of it going further increase drastically. Hopefully, this project can proceed with the right intentions.
It's difficult to separate fact from fiction these days. But I wonder about the ethics of the intention and the potential consequences of "de-extinction". 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' and when it comes to technology, unforseen fall-out figures high (who envisaged the way the world has been changed just from the one idea of a "horseless-carriage"? ... [sold to the general public by the way as a means to clean up the streets from horse-pooh pollution]).
Great insights!
Very interesting. I wonder about the altruistic claims. I think scientists do things because they can, so they can publish papers and bask in accolades. I'm a science fiction and horror fan, so I'm interested in the unforeseen consequences as well. Thank you for sharing this interesting story.
What caused red wolves to become so endangered? Are these new wolves to live in freedom or kept captive somewhere? As long as humans have so little respect for our fellow species as to take pleasure in harming/killing them and continue destroying their habitat it seems cruel to bring extinct species back if they're just bound to suffer and/or be killed. All that money and effort may be well better spent in protecting existing animals and their habitats.