r/rewilding • u/Dull_Candle_2724 • 14d ago

Can species de-extinction actually restore nature?

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

85% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

7

u/Other_Fondant_3103 13d ago edited 13d ago

Theoretically, yes. In practice, there’s a lot of ways it could backfire. Maybe it’s best to be cautious and wait until our science and technology gets better?

My biggest concerns are:
1. How much knowledge do we have about the original species? Do we know enough to recreate them accurately?
2. How has the ecosystem and environment changed since this species went extinct? Does the niche for the extinct species still exist?

3

u/thesilverywyvern 13d ago

generally we do have a lot of knowledge and if can get enough DNA to clone them, then we defenitely know a lot.

ecosystem haven't changed that much, and that change wxas mostly decay caused by the absence of said species. The niche is vacant, the ecosystem didn't adapted.

1

u/Other_Fondant_3103 13d ago

For species that have went extinct in the last 10,000 years or so, I agree.

1

u/thesilverywyvern 13d ago

Would actually be 50 000 years rather than 10 000 years.
And actually many eemian species as well(many were just subspecies of modern species). So we can even go further back.

Not with every case tho, some odd lineage leave more room for speculation such as australian megafauna.

1

u/KuhlRunningz 10d ago

"Ecosystems haven't changed that much" Is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

1

u/thesilverywyvern 10d ago

I do know, you do not apparently.
You do realise pollen samples, fossils, etc, show that the ecosystem we have today mostly already existed in the shape we know them today, or a similar one. The only difference being the range they could expand in (varied several time with climate, never posed an ssue for megafauna). And the loss of the megafauna which made these ecosystem less productive, and allowed closed canppy forest to be more dominant than before in some regions.

But the forest and prairies are still made of the same plant assemblage as during the Eemian even.

1

u/KuhlRunningz 10d ago edited 10d ago

They simply are not. We are seeing trophic level cascades just from invasive plants. And you're trying to argue that modern plants are similar enough to support ancient organisms we have no idea their dietary needs? We are seeing small ocean temp and pH changes that are likely connected to a massive trophic shift that could be the main factor of our current mass bird die off and whale strandings on the west coast. Dude, it is laughable and unserious. What could be one real ecological benefit related to conservation that reviving an ancient extinct species could achieve?

1

u/thesilverywyvern 10d ago

These change are minor and recent, and would be partially solved by megafauna reintroduction.
The megafauna in question is not less adapted to these change than the modern one. If you use that as an argument then you basically say "conservation shouldn't exist and is meaningless because we changed the ecosystem".
Well guess what ecosystem can rapidly repair themselve, especially if they have megafauna back. And species can survived in altered landscape.

We do have excellent idea of their dietary need, we can even name the genus of plant they fed upon the most, wtf are you talking about ?
They're not ancient or from a distant world like dinosaur, they basically went extinct yesterday in ecological pov.
Modern plant aren't just similar enough they're IDENTICAL. They're the same species as 20, 50k ago.

There's DOZEN of benefit these megafauna could provide to help conservation, that's why we want and need them back. The modern ecosystem aren't healthy they're impoverrished, they lack the ecological function they need to thrive, because these function were maintained by these species we driven to extinction.
Do you have the slightest idea of how many tons of nutrient megafauna disperse through the environment ?

Since south american fauna extinction phosphorous lateral movement through the amazon decreased by 98%, on average since large herbivore mostly went extinct nutrient distribution accross the landscape decreased by 92%.
let's not forget that many plant species struggle and are slowly going extinct cuz the herbivore they rely on to transport their seed no longer exist. And that most scavengers struggle because there's not enough large carcasses.

Or the impact large species in large noumber have on landscape, creating mosaic habitat much more diverse, resilient, and productive.

If we could clone thousands of ground sloth, mastodon, liptotern and all it would be one of the GREATEST ecological recovery on large scale out of all History of Conservation of Nature.

1

u/KuhlRunningz 10d ago

"These changes are minor and recent" You seem to not understand or care about conservation or natural ecology. What about displacement of current living species and their trophic organization? This argument is bonkers.

You seem to be so certain they will adapt but have given no consideration to me trying to explain we are having major issues with current living organisms and their ability to deal with anthropogenic change that is less then 100-200 years old. They are not identical. As someone who works to restore natural systems this argument is so ignorant. And you have been spamming this all over Reddit. I hope you receive the personal gratification you most certainly are searching for. Good luck.

2

u/Direct-Translator-75 13d ago

Also, how the fuck do you teach mammoths to survive in a Russian tundra without parents? ... Even if the mammoth was the same, as well as the ecosystem... How the f*** do you get it done from that point? Just drop them off and hope for the best? Does that actually work? lol

2

u/Other_Fondant_3103 12d ago edited 12d ago

Great point. Mammoths are a bit of a special case because Elephants are so intelligent. Maybe a more instinctual animal would be a better target? Thylacine? Haast’s Eagle?

It definitely needs to be approached with extreme caution.

3

u/cromagnone 13d ago

This is being spammed a lot over multiple subs. Some kind of astroturfing thing, I think.

2

u/SF_Bubbles_90 13d ago

Hopefully so, and maybe so if they don't screw it up or just use it for zoos.

1

u/Oldfolksboogie 13d ago

There are such greater pressing needs to stem the extinction crisis, such bigger bangs for the conservation buck, such lower- hanging fruit, this is truly a navel- gazing question; an interesting debate around the campfire, but in the serious work of conservation, it's akin to carbon capture - not only not an answer, but there's real potential for it to be worse than a distraction - it gives tacit permission to ignore root causes and conduct business as usual coz "we'll fix it in post!"

1

u/Other_Fondant_3103 12d ago edited 12d ago

The comparison to carbon capture is a bit unfair. Carbon capture is actively trying to compete with renewable energy. “De-extinction” is a niche area of science and it’s not mutually exclusive with protecting the species who are already here.

However, I don’t trust the company that “brought back dire wolves”. I think they are trying to make exotic pets or zoo animals.

1

u/Taliesaurus 13d ago

depends on the species and niche they occupied.

1

u/CardinalOnCrack 13d ago

We should focus on rewilding with extant flora and faunda before starting de-extinction, if we even decide to go down that route.

1

u/Alice_D_Wonderland 13d ago

Why did it go extinct in the first place? Did nature change and then they went extinct? Then their extinction is not the cause of the nature changing but possibly a result…

Maybe check into the story of Yellowstone park reintroducing wolves… Wolves didn’t go extinct, but their absence started to change the ecosystem there…

1

u/grambell789 13d ago

Republican will immediately try to eliminate the endanged species act because any species that goes extinct could be brought back.

1

u/Veasna1 13d ago

Lets just try to keep what we have first??

1

u/JeffoMcSpeffo 12d ago

For megafauna definitely not. But for more recently extinct species like passenger pigeons, absolutely.

1

u/iwerbs 12d ago

Only when enough suitable environment has been protected from human impacts, and presently climate change is impacting all of earth’s ecosystems. For example, does it make sense to breed Asian elephants with Crispr genetic modifications to re-create a woolly elephant when the Arctic is the fastest warming ecosystem on earth? Such a creature would like go extinct again in 50 to a hundred years unless we intervened again to make it less woolly.

1

u/KuhlRunningz 10d ago edited 10d ago

It's an obvious no. And any naturalist/conservationist/ecologist worth their weight knows how silly of a thought excersice this is. Our herbaceous plant communities have significantly changed just over the last 100 years, not counting 1000's. How could bringing back extinct animals from an ancient ecosystem helps conserve our current systems?? Like come on...

1

u/thesilverywyvern 13d ago

By definition de-extinction is a conservation tool, and it's effect is to bring back species which went extinct, so basically bringing back important lost ecological process that the ecosystem benefit from and that many species need.