De-extinction

[Delibirb]

it's not about "we feel bad" it's about "if this species dies off we ourselves will have problems down the line." we use bees (among other animals/plants) for a ton of things, having them die out, for any reason would be harmful to us. same goes for other species. having the tech on hand, properly developed will make creation of artificial ecosystems easier, and we'll benefit from it by having one more ability on hand when humanity ventures into space.not to mention there's not real reason to not do it, even if the purpose was to introduce dead animals, there's nothing actually wrong with that either. animals and plants that have gone extinct might possess traits that could help humanity as a whole, not bringing them back when we know how would be akin to not looking in the top drawer to the left for your keys. you might not find what you're looking for, but it doesn't hurt to check.

 

Nature would state that we'd deal with the loss of bees in some form or another. Either evolving ourselves or adjusting our lifestyle to accommodate. There's more to revitalizing a global population of bees thank just cloning more of them.

 

I've tried to keep my transhumanist ideology out of this because I understand it's disagreeable, but there's no real reason humanity needs to continue existing as we are other than self righteousness. If bee depopulation spells doom, we should find ways to cope, either with natural evolution if possible, or forced ®evolution. Swimming against the metaphoric current is in the end fruitless, either because our efforts will fail or nature will find a new rock to throw at us that we'll be unprepared for. "they're vital to the ecosystem" is not a valid reason either, the ecosystem is changing as they do, we will change with it as we do.

 

Edit: I'm not saying we simply shouldn't revive dead animal species; my first post exclaimed that it was a neat trick. I only am claiming that more focus should be put in to adapting ourselves to the changes of nature, rather than revitalizing things that couldn't do so.

[vla1ne]

Nature would state that we'd deal with the loss of bees in some form or another. Either evolving ourselves or adjusting our lifestyle to accommodate. There's more to revitalizing a global population of bees thank just cloning more of them.

 

I've tried to keep my transhumanist ideology out of this because I understand it's disagreeable, but there's no real reason humanity needs to continue existing as we are other than self righteousness. If bee depopulation spells doom, we should find ways to cope, either with natural evolution if possible, or forced ®evolution. Swimming against the metaphoric current is in the end fruitless, either because our efforts will fail or nature will find a new rock to throw at us that we'll be unprepared for. "they're vital to the ecosystem" is not a valid reason either, the ecosystem is changing as they do, we will change with it as we do.

 

Edit: I'm not saying we simply shouldn't revive dead animal species; my first post exclaimed that it was a neat trick. I only am claiming that more focus should be put in to adapting ourselves to the changes of nature, rather than revitalizing things that couldn't do so.

yeah, nature might, but humanity doesn't exactly need to abide by the laws of nature, if we have a way to make a loophole, especially if it's to continue using something that's not bad for us or the world around us, then there's nothing preventing us from doing so. sure, we might not be able to revitalizze the species entirely at first, but mass replication coupled with genetic manipulation solves that rather easily. a couple hundred with varied, but compatiblegenes, is all we need to make at least a minor template. past thet we can just continue adding more into the mix at fixed intervals.

 

there's no purpose to anything alive as far as we're concerned, other than what we give them, and can get from them. nature doesn't care it its artificial or not, and humanity's been swimming against the current since we began to build cities. this is just another step forwards in that current. it's no different. saying we can adapt is nice and all, and sure, it's possible, but this counts as evolution as well for humanity. bringing other things back to suit or needs might be the exact evolution we need at this point in time.

 

what i'm saying is, it might be just a neat trick now, it's the kind of thing that would literally change life as humans know it if studied and advanced further. it's the ability to bring back life, from my perspective, there are very few things more useful than something like this.

[Delibirb]

yeah, nature might, but humanity doesn't exactly need to abide by the laws of nature, if we have a way to make a loophole, especially if it's to continue using something that's not bad for us or the world around us, then there's nothing preventing us from doing so. sure, we might not be able to revitalizze the species entirely at first, but mass replication coupled with genetic manipulation solves that rather easily. a couple hundred with varied, but compatiblegenes, is all we need to make at least a minor template. past thet we can just continue adding more into the mix at fixed intervals.

 

there's no purpose to anything alive as far as we're concerned, other than what we give them, and can get from them. nature doesn't care it its artificial or not, and humanity's been swimming against the current since we began to build cities. this is just another step forwards in that current. it's no different. saying we can adapt is nice and all, and sure, it's possible, but this counts as evolution as well for humanity. bringing other things back to suit or needs might be the exact evolution we need at this point in time.

 

what i'm saying is, it might be just a neat trick now, it's the kind of thing that would literally change life as humans know it if studied and advanced further. it's the ability to bring back life, from my perspective, there are very few things more useful than something like this.

Cities arent' swimming against the current. Somea nimals have been constructing things to change their environment for millennium. For example, Beavers and dams.

 

Nature, as I said, is entirely about birth, change, and destruction. Preservation and conservation of the way things are - or trying to revert back to the way things were - sounds like a nice sentiment and might even sound like a good idea at the time, but it will just cause changes in other places that we weren't focusing or counting on. The only option to all but guarantee that the forces of nature don't blindside us is to not just allow the world to change, but to change it, and ourselves, for ourselves. Either working on evolution, changing our lifestyles to accommodate for changing environment, or my preferred option, start working on artificial super intelligence for the purposes of becoming the next effective humans when we eventually can't sustain our bodies/massive population anymore.

 

There's a wonderful thought experiment of sorts called the Fermi Paradox, and it begs the question - using a complicated formula to calculate the approximate number of habitable planets in I believe the known universe - if there are so many planets that could sustain life, we do we have no signs of other sentient life anywhere? Not so much as a signal sent out into space as we do? The paradox itself isn't the interesting part, it's one of the hypothesized answers: perhaps there are certain "barriers" that intelligent life tends to end up facing; plague, nuclear warfare, etc. Like boss battles for entire planet-sprawling civilizations. And perhaps all other life that has existed elsewhere in the universe has either not yet reached the point of being detectable, or met one of these barriers, and failed. This would suggest that we are at least about fifty years out from what our last potential barrier was, if not centuries. Either way, sooner or later, we'll be due for another. I for one would like to be potentially prepared to deal with whatever it may be. Repopulation of failing species doesn't work to that end. It's a side project, something to be intrigued by but not to focus on as a society.

[vla1ne]

when i said against the current, i meant things like internet, airplanes, submarines, genetic manipulation, spaceships, satellites, machines in general, cloning, farming, ect. these kinds of things go against how nature functions already. de-extinction is no different. we're just making loopholes for humanity to advance.

 

it's about humanity finding new loopholes in the laws of nature. it's not preserving, it's finding new things to advance humanity, but even under the stance of reservation, there is nothing inherently wrong about bringing back a species that was wiped out by humanity. it wouldn't damage the environment, and as you said, it'd simply trigger more change.  humanity does not have to care about what nature does, short of volcanoes and meteors, humanity is already at the point where extinction events wouldn't do all that much against humanity that humanity couldn't get around.

 

says who? honest question. do you know if this side experiment won't have any use at all in the future? i don't, but i can think of quite a few applications that developing it would have, including averting the future loss of animals that humanity may need to cultivate crops and/or feed the population. it's nice and all to say that humanity can adapt fast enough, but the best attribute of humanity is the ability to plan ahead, and the ability to bring back animals that may be necessary for humanity is about as ahead as i can imagine planning. but before even that, you need to remember, that nature does not care one way or another, it changes on its own terms, and adding in new factors, even reintroducing extinct animals, does not change that one bit. in nature, anything that can be done, goes. there's no real rules of nature outside of the laws of physics. therefore if it can be done, then it's fair game, and this counts in that regard.

[Delibirb]

 

when i said against the current, i meant things like internet, airplanes, submarines, genetic manipulation, spaceships, satellites, machines in general, cloning, farming, ect. these kinds of things go against how nature functions already. de-extinction is no different. we're just making loopholes for humanity to advance.

 

it's about humanity finding new loopholes in the laws of nature. it's not preserving, it's finding new things to advance humanity, but even under the stance of reservation, there is nothing inherently wrong about bringing back a species that was wiped out by humanity. it wouldn't damage the environment, and as you said, it'd simply trigger more change.  humanity does not have to care about what nature does, short of volcanoes and meteors, humanity is already at the point where extinction events wouldn't do all that much against humanity that humanity couldn't get around.

 

says who? honest question. do you know if this side experiment won't have any use at all in the future? i don't, but i can think of quite a few applications that developing it would have, including averting the future loss of animals that humanity may need to cultivate crops and/or feed the population. it's nice and all to say that humanity can adapt fast enough, but the best attribute of humanity is the ability to plan ahead, and the ability to bring back animals that may be necessary for humanity is about as ahead as i can imagine planning. but before even that, you need to remember, that nature does not care one way or another, it changes on its own terms, and adding in new factors, even reintroducing extinct animals, does not change that one bit. in nature, anything that can be done, goes. there's no real rules of nature outside of the laws of physics. therefore if it can be done, then it's fair game, and this counts in that regard.

 

First paragraph, none of that is against the current. They are constructions and advances, not preservation of anything. Therefore, they're not going against nature. Yes, they aren't created by sheer natural force, they're created by intelligence, but it's all natural order of creating new things to change things and how they work individually and as a population.

 

Second paragraph, you start off saying maintaining and revitalizing dying or extinct species isn't preservation when that is exactly what it is by definition. Then you acknowledge what I said that trying to preserve things will cause other changes, totally ignoring my point that the different changes are those that we will be unprepared for because we'd be too busy trying to keep things the same.

 

Third paragraph, you try to once more appeal to the fact that we don't know if something will be useful later, totally ignoring that I've conceded that it's a neat trick and could be potentially useful as a means of maintaining a population of clones for the purpose of exploiting their physical traits. I've been very clear that what I'm against is trying to reconstitute actual ecosystems. Then you veer off and talk about how nature will do what it wants, which is a pointless statement because I'm arguing that myself. Nature will just end up attemtping (not of course in an intelligent sense) to screw us regardless, so let's try to adapt ourselves, either as a species or in terms of society and lifestyle, to be ready for that next barrier.

 

I'm really enjoying the topic and up until now this has been a fun argument, but your last post is a little disheartening, you were doing very well introducing new points and ideals, but you've basically just rehashed a lot of what you said prior, acknowledging what I said last but not really responding to it or trying to refute it. If you dont maintain your earlier skills, I'm going to get bored and leave.

[vla1ne]

If Advancement is the creation of anything that can be useful in the future, or create change in the future, then this can indeed be useful, and cause massive change in the future. in fact, you have already stated that you admit it has its' uses (allows for terraforming processes to include the creation of living mammals (extinct or otherwise), advancing our understanding of genetics, re-balance ecosystems that may rely on specific creatures to function, bring back plants that may posses components that help cures modern diseases, ect...). even de-extinction can have uses if used to replace key species in an ecosystem (preventing the death of multiple species in an environment, which could lead to unfavorable drops in the populations of other animals). but let's take your "advancement is good" to one of many logical conclusions, let's say that there was a virus that was swiftly evolving, and it quickly became immune to everything we had, that would be natural progression correct? but it clearly would not be good for humanity correct? but since it still counts as natural advancement, by what standards would you claim it is bad? the same thing goes for preservation. yes, advancement can lead to good things, but sometimes the better option is to ensure that things remain as they are. nature gives not one bother that humanity exists, and in exchange, i see no reason to halt a bit of natural progression to benefit humanity every now and then.  not every advancement will lead to good things, and halting advancement will not always lead to bad things. it's two sides to the coin. advancement comes with negatives and positives, and the same goes for halting advancement.

 

we would not be too busy "keeping things the same", that statement implies that bringing back a past species would be the only thing we could focus on at any point in time. that is incorrect, it is one action, that if polished, would take very little time overall to execute. just so we're clear though, i'm not advocating bringing back every species ever, or even bringing back any significant number of them. what i'm advocating is further developing the ability to do so, because it could have alternate applications (including those listed above). and were it to become a feasible option, i can see no real downsides to occasionally putting nature back where it was before it was interfered with if the alternate option is unbalancing it to an extreme degree.

 

it would not mean that humanity couldn't advance, nor would it mean that humanity could not develop other abilities alongside said technique, or even that humanity wouldn't be able to gain anything from bringing back an extinct species. it would simply mean humanity had something additional to fall back on if there were ever an approaching shortage of resources. if the argument is that it goes against how nature works, who really cares? by that same logic, our forcing other species to go extinct is perfectly natural, and the evolution of a virus capable of killing off all of humanity were a good thing, because they both count as an advancement of one species. yes, i could make the argument that humanity can advance by killing off many other species. but back to the point. nature does not come with an instruction manual, evolution, advancement, and all other manner of things are not mandatory, you seem somewhat obsessed with going forwards and you are missing the option of going back to get things we may need in the future. I am not telling you that this is the only way to do things, i am telling you that as an option, the benefits outweigh the potential downsides. 

 

"so let's try to adapt ourselves, either as a species or in terms of society and lifestyle, to be ready for that next barrier."

preserving, bringing nature back to a point in the past, is not a complete step backwards, again, it is an ability that humanity has never had before. in fact, a species being completely reintroduced to any ecosystem after dying off 100% has never been done before. it's literally something that neither nature or humanity has ever experienced. it is, in a sense, extreme advancement on a scientific level, unlike anything anybody has ever accomplished. in fact, it could have a similar effects as introducing an entirely new species to the environment. i believe you think that i am arguing for restoring of every species though, i'm not doing that. i'm arguing for developing the ability to do so, but i am not actually advocating just going around restoring every species that's died or that we've killed. 

 

now, i have given you multiple concrete benefits that could be gained from developing said technology, and what you have given me in return is that it goes against nature and we won't be able to prepare for some imagined future changes. so my questions become: what negative changes, if any, come about solely from developing this kind of technology? what is it that you believe we would be too busy to avoid? this is one branch of science, out of many, and not everybody would be relying on it, even if it were to become as polished as i hope it could. but you seem to think there is some major detriment that could occur from it being developed, so i'm asking for specifics. what would come about that we'd be too busy to deal with? why do you seem to believe that if this were to be created, we would not still have other means of adapting on other burners?

[Delibirb]

I think perhaps you are focusing too heavily on the fact that I'm arguing that there could be negative effects of trying to foolishly control elements of reality we don't really understand well enough nor really matter to us - which is a very fine debate - and you're overlooking that I'm only bringing these up because I wish for humanity to focus moreso on altering parts of reality that we can certainly understand and control and definitively matter to us, and I'm absolutely not saying we completely avoid experimenting in this new aspect of science to learn more about how it could be useful and how we could understand it.

 

Being able to revive dead or dying species is an advancement. Doing so for any reason other than systematic exploitation of their resources - farming - is not, it's preservation, which is sentimental but not as helpful as other focuses would be, such as farming, or totally different avenues of research altogether.

 

A virus becoming totally immune to everything we had is a part of nature, but I'd classify it as one of the barriers I would like humanity to work towards being able to survive. Revitalizing ecosystems doesn't prepare us for said barrier.

 

You are correct that de-extinction would not be the only thing we do at any given time, but repopulating whole ecosystems takes money, effort, time, and cooperation, not all of which can all be abundant at any given time or for extended periods of time, particularly cooperation. The more of those resources we pour into subjects that aren't self improvement, the less of them goes into self improvement.

 

My point of going against nature is not an ethical one, it's a survival one. It isn't a matter of me caring about nature, it's a matter of me being aware that trying to fight nature will end poorly, by its very nature.

 

You ask for potential threats that could arise if humanity decides to put preservation before evolution, failing to understand my fear: we cannot know what threats nature will throw at us when we change try to change the rules. One can reasonably estimate what current threats to humanity are and probably accurately order their relevance. If we give reach an advanced position to be able to truly clone more animals, then give advancement a back seat to using that power in a fashion that is unproductive in the cosmic long run, we risk changing what threatens us and how immediate those threats are. You're correct that nature doesn't care that we're here, but we can proceed as a species in one form or another as long as we can keep in mind: our future will always be uncertain, but the proverbial tunnel of time collapses behind us, that we have evidence for, so we need to keep going in, no matter how dark, to not be crushed. Pardon the metaphor.

[vla1ne]

alright, i think i understand your position more now. 

controlling things that we know next to nothing about is something that humanity has done for decades, to various extents, such as fire before we knew the full extent of what we could do with it, radiation before we completely understood the adverse and positive effects, ect. this would be far less dangerous than those things, and could allow us to reference species that have been wiped out to better understand genetics, but that's just me repeating things.

 

I agree, but while i don't think preservation would be of use all that often, it's not a strictly negative consequence, it passes the bar, so long as there's minimal abuse of the system. If i'm reading your context correctly, then you are ok with something like this, you just don't think it should be used all that often, and preferably only for humanity's' direct gain. if so, then that's fine, to each their own on that, but for a bit there i did think you were just flat-out against it. everything in moderation imo, and i assume that's also your stance to an extent.

 

as far as the virus example, this system could be a good way to safely replicate samples of said virus after killing it, to understand the natural base better without needing hosts to view it while active. similar to the earlier story of the spider venom pesticide, this kind of ability would allow us to break down, and further understand the mechanics of life, not just constructing, but destructing it. it would be decent additional prep for analyzing life, which could lead to simpler cures, and possibly even preventative medicine for problems like cancer. not sure how much more it would advance something like this, but i say it's worth a shot.

 

I agree that it would take money, but i'm not arguing for wild spending of said funds, especially if said funds aren't there, or if time is scarce. but we have enough time right now to get a decent start on it (although funds might be an issue. sure, the more we pour into it, the less there is to go around, but advancement of genetic fields count as improvement as well. maybe not immediate self improvement, but it's a step forwards in controlling the conditions of life.

 

it's changing the base rules of the system. there's no real fight to it, anymore than there is in finding ways to permanently kill of bacterial viruses(so yes, fight,but not on any real grand scale). yes it will allow us to bend the rules of extinction, but that in and of itself isn't actually a negative. i grant that it can have potential negatives if used to reintroduce species, but as for simply recreating life to gain live samples of already dead creatures, there's no real harm in it so long as it's in a lab.

 

sure, we don't know potential threats, but at the same time, that changes nothing about the action itself. and even with this, we can make predictions based upon what we know of the samples and the environments. to attempt to develop this kind of technology, we might overlook some things, but this opens up a second toolbox of sorts, which could prove just as valuable. i wouldn't advocate complete abandon in resurrecting a species for any purpose, of course i advise caution, but there's no clear downside to something like this done in moderation, and no imminent or inevitable danger if used on a larger scale (even if i don't advise doing so). the statement that time closes behind us is somewhat accurate, but this rebuilds the tunnel, so to speak, and there are no current negatives to doing so. if any serious negatives are discovered, then yeah, shut it down, but at the moment, the potential negatives don't outweigh any of the positives imo, so i say go for it.

[Delibirb]

So then, it sounds like we're in agreement that this discipline of science should certainly be explored, with hesitation at least. Though I think the whole argument could have been avoided if I had been more clear in my original posts about what specifically I was opposed to.

[vla1ne]

So then, it sounds like we're in agreement that this discipline of science should certainly be explored, with hesitation at least. Though I think the whole argument could have been avoided if I had been more clear in my original posts about what specifically I was opposed to.

we agree on the need for boundaries, we just got a bit mixed up over how far we thought each of us was asking to take it. no worries.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oldish news, but still good news that I missed

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/living/manatee-endangered-species-feat/

[Christian Exodia]

I wholeheartedly support this, as a person who is morbidly curious about extinct animals.

 

In all seriousness, though, we need to, at very least, consider the viability of such technologies and such processes that could bring back animals we have needlessly killed off (or even plants) in an age where conservation needs to be a key priority.

[Raine]

I'm confused? They're extinct . Doesn't that mean we won? Why resurrect a losing team. GG NO RE F*CKING DODOS! One day we'll be the last living things on the planet. We're easily in first place and once we end this dependency non-sense and "natural appreciation" we can finally call the match.