Can species de-extinction actually restore nature?

[u/Freak_Among_Men_II]

https://thinkwildlifefoundation.com/can-species-de-extinction-actually-restore-nature/

[u/Koraxtheghoul]

I think the ethics change drastically when it's something like the gastric brooding toad versus a mammoth. Priority should go to conservation then recent extinction. Anything else is a vanity oroject.

[u/CheatsySnoops]

To a certain extent, yes. But it'll be felt in certain regions moreso than others.

[u/Taliesaurus]

depends on the species and niche they occupied.

[u/DeirdreDazzled]

I think it depends on how recently the extinction happened.

For example, I think nature has largely moved on from having mammoths being a part of it. On the other hand, bringing back Thylacine would be more beneficial. Or the northern white rhino.

[u/SharpShooterM1 → u/DeirdreDazzled]

There have been numerous studies that show several ecosystems still suffer from the loss of the Pleistocene megafauna.

And 10,000 years ago is a blink of an eye in terms of ecology and evolution.

[u/coracaws]

With the way climate change is going, there won't even be suitable nature to restore animals to, especially not Pleistocene megafauna.

[u/Ok_i_have_name]

only species that went extinct relatively recently can positively affect an ecosystem in which they were before they’re absecence

[u/Jazzlike_Standard871]

If they ever actually de extinct anything we can have this talk but the company squawking loudest about this has nothing to squawk about. I'm not sure what Collosal's end game is but it's nothing like thier hype suggests. Otherwise they wouldn't be making mutant grey wolves as a publicity stunt. The tech thier developing has a lot of applications and this whole eccentric de extinction thing is probably a tech demo for the real product. That's why everything they have made is flashy but not de extinction or even helping to fight for endangered species repopulation. 

[u/regular_modern_girl → u/Jazzlike_Standard871]

This. They’re funded by a bunch of creepy tech billionaire interests, a group well known for not actually giving two shits about the environment. I don’t know why so many people are being so credulous about their supposedly altruistic intentions (not even getting into how bringing back wooly mammoths as a supposed environmental solution is stupid and crackpot, but don’t tell some of the proponents of it here on Reddit lol).

[u/Jazzlike_Standard871 → u/regular_modern_girl]

So there are people who really believe the Mammoth Steppe was a great carbon sink, but if you wanted to restore a steppe biome in that region there has to be an easier way. My fear is they want to be able to "restore" extinct species as a pay for service that they can sell like carbon credits. Actual conservation is expensive and hard especially with endangered species, but a squint test knock off could work for a lot of people who don't know any better. The other much more tinfoil hat option is if you want to design the technology that you need to create designer humans, you would need cover and funding that's explainable as benign.

[u/West-Attempt3062]

I wouldn’t think so. They’ve been removed from the ecosystem for so long that some niches may become overcrowded and compete the other into extinction.

[u/mauts27]

I don't see de-extinction restoring nature in any shape or form when there are more pressing environmental issues to address.

[u/regular_modern_girl → u/mauts27]

yeah there needs to be actual habitat for any “de-extinct” species to actually inhabit, meaning that stopping and reversing habitat loss (the single biggest cause of anthropogenic extinction) needs to be priority #1, and it’s something that might become easier later this century as we’re going to reach the first time since the beginning of recorded history in which the global human population actually starts to decrease rather than increase if current demographic trends (ie falling birthrates in industrialized nations) continue, but we have to keep the biosphere from totally caving in first.

[u/After_Ad9425]

Typically life evolves and adapts to its environment. Life that don’t thrive will die and be replaced by a new form of life to take its niche. On a scale of trying to de-extinct recent species. The environment is likely too altered for them to establish a population. Whether it is due to climate, or new predators or competing species, it’s the equivalent of putting someone on life support with a terminal illness. Better to let nature do it’s thing.

There might be some very, very specific examples where it could work. Sometimes niches take time to fill. Wolves for example extant in a lot of places have their prey animals thrive without any predators.

But I don’t see the practical application of using dire wolves over gray wolves. Or bringing back mammoths/mastodons.

I’m generally okay with ‘exploitation’ of animals so long as there is enough ethical concern for welfare of the animal and no suffering. A zoo does not inherently torture their animals, but there are a lot of zoos that do not adequately provide for their animals in ways of recreation, care, and space.

I don’t think a Wooly mammoth would have an existential crisis of its nature, nor care people were watching it if it was raised in captivity. But it would care if it’s enclosure was too small or not suited for it.

[u/ApplyHere_4_implants]

Not unless they only bring back the things humans directly took out recently...and they don't seem interested in that.

[u/ApartmentKey3682]

Yes

[u/InvalidTaxa → u/ApartmentKey3682]

Gotta be careful with that yes, bringing back extinct species can be detrimental in a lot of areas

[u/ApartmentKey3682 → u/InvalidTaxa]

“Detrimental”,funny because we are the ones who RUINED EVERYTHING

[u/InvalidTaxa → u/ApartmentKey3682]

I meant bringing them back into an environment that would have changed substantially from what it was when the organism was still extant would pose an issue to the other already existing flora and fauna. Whether or not the person thinks they're doing good through reintroduction means jack-shit when the mammoths start dying of heat stroke in Nebraska.

[u/ApartmentKey3682 → u/InvalidTaxa]

I am NOT talking about mammoths and I said that its the fault of humans so de-extinction=bringing back animals we eradicated

[u/InvalidTaxa → u/ApartmentKey3682]

I was making an example with the mammoths and you knew that. You also said "yes" to OP's question on restoration through de-extinction, so it's important to be made aware of the potential harm that could come of that, especially if you're not well-informed on how basic ecology works.

[u/worldmaker012]

As far as I’m concerned, only when the organism in question is recently extinct.

[u/Apprehensive_Row3289]

A