Novak is among a small group of "de-extinction" engineers, a relatively fringe group of scientists that hope to use genetic engineering to protect or revive iconic animal species ravaged by human activity.
To some, de-extinction is an ecological-sized guilt trip, a species-wide Pet Cemetery horror story ripe for disaster. Yes, biodiversity is important; but who is to say that an extinct species can adapt and survive in an ecological system that's moved on since its passing? Or perhaps more importantly, what if newly-revived animals—a true "invasive species" for Earth—cause more damage than good to our fragile ecosystem?
"Why go through the trouble" is something his team gets asked, said Novak. For passenger pigeons, the answer is simple: recently, almost a
millennium[century] after their man-driven extinction, we finally understand the critical role they played in shaping the eastern North American ecosphere.
The passenger pigeon isn't extinct -- it's merely resting.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:37PM (4 children)
No, it's pining for the Fnords.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 24 2018, @05:41PM (3 children)
It misses the irrational subconscious sense of unease and confusion from a programmed trigger? I find the fjords far more worthy of pining for myself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:17PM (2 children)
*points up to the editor who posted the story*
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:10PM (1 child)
As in "The passenger pigeon isn't extinct -- it's merely resting."?
Or maybe it's pining for the fjords (as in the same Monty Python sketch). Fnords however are a completely unrelated concept.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:28PM
Oh, wait, the editor's name. Gotcha. Only a little slow today.