Did scientists revive an extinct animal or just breed a less stripey zebra?
Efforts to “revive” extinct animals such as South Africa’s quagga and the woolly mammoth are prompting questions about whether these projects restore lost biodiversity or merely create lookalike variants of existing species. Commenters weigh claims that de‑extinction could help ecosystems and climate against concerns about animal welfare, habitat loss, poaching, and the opportunity cost versus protecting species that are currently endangered. Many see strong elements of ego, nostalgia, and fundraising appeal in these high‑profile projects, while others argue that pushing the boundaries of genetic technology and conservation science is inherently valuable even if practical benefits remain uncertain.
Uncertainty About the “Quagga” Revival
- Thread notes the project’s own admission: only upcoming genome sequencing of the re‑bred animals can show how close they are to real quaggas.
- Several argue this is more “less‑stripey zebras” than true de‑extinction; genetically they’ll remain much closer to modern zebras than to historical quaggas, limiting scientific value.
Motivations for De‑extinction
- Strong skepticism that mammoth/quagga efforts are driven by ego, spectacle, and money, with climate or conservation framed as retroactive justifications.
- Others defend “doing cool stuff” as a core driver of science and technology, comparable to space exploration, and see nothing wrong with mixed motives (curiosity, fame, funding).
Climate and Ecosystem Arguments
- Proponents: resurrected mammoths could help restore Siberian grasslands and sequester carbon; similar logic used for reintroducing beavers, bison, and wolves elsewhere.
- Critics: see this as a “solution in search of a problem,” doubt mammoths’ survival in altered climates, worry about poaching, untested ecological impacts, and availability of cheaper, targeted climate interventions.
- Disagreement over whether suitable “mammoth steppe”–like habitats still exist.
Conservation Priorities and Resource Allocation
- One side: de‑extinction risks diverting money and attention from protecting existing species and habitats; better to stop ongoing extinctions first.
- Other side: calls this a false dichotomy or “lump of labor” fallacy; funding sources and motivations differ, and high‑profile megafauna can amplify support for broader conservation.
Ethical and Welfare Concerns
- Worries that revived, intelligent social animals could suffer (poor adaptation, isolation, “endling” scenarios).
- Others argue animals can be raised and trained; uncertainty is inherent in experimentation.
Genetics, Selective Breeding, and Dogs
- Long subthread on poodles, inbreeding, and “hypoallergenic” claims used as analogy: selective breeding can create unhealthy bottlenecks, and phenotype similarity doesn’t equal genetic or ecological equivalence.
- Applying similar narrow selection to recreate quaggas may reduce genetic diversity rather than increase it.
Biodiversity, Extinction, and Modeling
- General agreement that biodiversity has value, but debate over how to quantify it and how reliable extinction‑rate models are.
- Examples (bananas, chestnut trees) used to show long‑term economic value of genetic diversity, supporting robust conservation—even if de‑extinction remains costly and speculative.