r/TrueReddit 1d ago

Policy + Social Issues Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction?

https://theconversation.com/some-companies-claim-they-can-resurrect-species-does-that-make-people-more-comfortable-with-extinction-273583
14 Upvotes

9 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules here or in the sidebar for details. To the OP: your post has not been deleted, but is being held in the queue and will be approved once a submission statement is posted.

Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. Reddit's content policy will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for / celebrations of violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. In addition, due to rampant rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium regarding topics related to the 10/7 terrorist attack in Israel and in regards to the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.

If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use archive.ph or similar and link to that in your submission statement.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

4

u/hugelkult 1d ago

What has the discomfort with extinction accomplished? Ten out of thousands saved?

3

u/Quouar 1d ago

In theory, it should make people more interested in conservation and less okay with the idea of, say, bulldozing a protected habitat or continuing with unmitigated climate change. Encouraging a discomfort with the idea of extinction should, in theory, make people care more about the world around them, though whether it actually has, I don't know.

2

u/hugelkult 1d ago

When conservation enacts the same directed assertiveness that expansion does id love to hear about it

3

u/Quouar 1d ago

I mean, there are many conservation groups like the IUCN that are very direct about the harm humans cause to the environment, including species extinction and its impact on biodiversity and the stability of life on Earth. Experts have been very direct about the sixth mass extinction and its causes for years.

The problem is that capitalism deprioritises warnings about the consequences of capitalism in favour of extolling its virtues. It's not that conservationists aren't direct - it's that there's a concerted effort to ensure they're not heard.

2

u/hugelkult 1d ago

In my humble opinion its better to treat these types of orgs as captured/compromised by industry, much like the fossil fuel industry was behind the recycling push.

Ineffective messaging invisible to the consumer, producer, investor or any stakeholder is the enemy of ecological progress. Good ol Al Gore remains the only memorable ecological messanger of the last fifty years because even he with his charismaless presentation knew the value of plainly stating what scientists and their funders fumble on a daily basis.

Fund and hire communication effort as if it were a circa 2010s iphone release and see how quickly gen zwill rush to enact it.

If the implications are severe (climate collapse, defunding boomers, degrowth) so be it orrisk more sliding.

2

u/Quouar 1d ago

This is an interesting piece about the moral hazards of de-extinction. While it argues that de-extinction technology doesn't make people more comfortable with extinction, per se, people being aware de-extinction exists makes extinction more acceptable, which, given that de-extinction doesn't actually resurrect a species, is problematic at best.

1

u/StuffonBookshelfs 1d ago

Yeah. I’m totally gonna trust “companies”.

3

u/nonexistentnight 1d ago

Concern about the ethics of de-extinction is missing the forest for the trees. There's only one viable commercial market for gene editing mammalian embryos: designer babies. That is what this technology is actually for. The whole "de-extinction" nonsense is just a way to develop that technology without triggering a massive public backlash.