Sophie's Dire choice, no? Except... those Dire Wolves that were "unextincted" aren't really Dire Wolves at all. They're genetically modified Gray Wolves (canis lupus) with *zero* true Dire Wolf dna. So, where do we draw the line at bringing things back when they aren't really what we're "paying" for? Is a reasonable facsimile good enough for our billions?
Absolutely fascinating post. Thank you for sharing!
Thanks for the comment, and it's a good question. For my part, I think I feel like I would pay more for a species that was significantly different from an existing one, even if the new species wasn't quite the same as the prior extinct species. I'd pay less for a species similar to an existing one. And thanks for the kind words!
I don't value species, I value individuals and their suffering. Extincting a species will cause a lot of suffering to all the indivdiduals of the species along the way, so it has huge cost and we shouldn't do it. Reviving a species will likely cause a lot of suffering to the failed tests as we experiment and get them back, so we shouldn't do it either. Once a species is extinct, the damage has been done, we shouldn't make things worse by trying to bring them back
There's a similar mismatch between the value of life in my mind. Killing somebody while they're unconscious is bad, simply not creating their consciousness in the first place is totally fine and in many cases good, even tho in both cases no consciousness was ended, only potential consciousness was prevented
Should mention that valuing their suffering is overly simplistic. I value their right to their life and their body, spraying heroin mist around to kill them all by blissful overdose is not acceptable either
Sophie's Dire choice, no? Except... those Dire Wolves that were "unextincted" aren't really Dire Wolves at all. They're genetically modified Gray Wolves (canis lupus) with *zero* true Dire Wolf dna. So, where do we draw the line at bringing things back when they aren't really what we're "paying" for? Is a reasonable facsimile good enough for our billions?
Absolutely fascinating post. Thank you for sharing!
Thanks for the comment, and it's a good question. For my part, I think I feel like I would pay more for a species that was significantly different from an existing one, even if the new species wasn't quite the same as the prior extinct species. I'd pay less for a species similar to an existing one. And thanks for the kind words!
Great read, Rob! And well presented too!
Thanks for the kind words!
An extra twist with de-extinction is how much people are willing to pay for the status of being a part of the project.
I don't value species, I value individuals and their suffering. Extincting a species will cause a lot of suffering to all the indivdiduals of the species along the way, so it has huge cost and we shouldn't do it. Reviving a species will likely cause a lot of suffering to the failed tests as we experiment and get them back, so we shouldn't do it either. Once a species is extinct, the damage has been done, we shouldn't make things worse by trying to bring them back
There's a similar mismatch between the value of life in my mind. Killing somebody while they're unconscious is bad, simply not creating their consciousness in the first place is totally fine and in many cases good, even tho in both cases no consciousness was ended, only potential consciousness was prevented
I agree with you that a key ethical question is suffering. I myself am not always certain how to apply that principle, however. I've been impressed with Diana Fleischman's ideas on this topic, e.g., https://mission.org/mission-daily/minimizing-your-suffering-footprint-with-dr-diana-fleischman/. I generally like the framing of a "suffering footprint."
Should mention that valuing their suffering is overly simplistic. I value their right to their life and their body, spraying heroin mist around to kill them all by blissful overdose is not acceptable either