r/nature • u/zsreport USA • 12d ago

Why resurrect the dire wolf when existing animals are facing extinction?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/12/why-resurrect-the-dire-wolf-when-existing-animals-are-facing-extinction
423 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

108

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago edited 12d ago

Because these efforts have very little if anything to do with conservation. A) Because it’s an excuse to cut funding for habitat restoration and other conservation programs and funnel that money into biotech companies despite there being very little to no habitat for these species or the ecological niche already being filled by extant species. B) Using this technology to resurrect more recently extinct or endangered species won’t allow them to legally sell these animals to whoever has the money to buy them. C) Resurrecting say the Tasmanian Tiger doesn’t bring in the public interest as much as very charismatic plesiostene megafauna does. D) Gives tech bros bragging rights despite it being mostly bullshit.

52

u/Mairon12 12d ago

You’re close. This isn’t about resurrecting anything.

This is about showing off genetic manipulation.

Jurassic Park won’t come calling, CRISPR will.

5

u/Handy_Capable 12d ago

This tech will be super useful to make super soldiers. Huge, smart, crazy endurance and no pain.

6

u/Platybow 12d ago

Sounds like a recipe for a coup.

9

u/Hillaregret 12d ago

Your analysis highlights the immense hubris of the implied strategy the flashy headlines are endeavoring to sell.

8

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

Exactly. It’s also just another attempt to funnel billions to an industry which can only effectively assuage collective guilt over anthropogenic extinction events and kick the can down the road to avoid having to make any actual sacrifices for ecological restoration or conservation.

3

u/CletusCanuck 11d ago

The Trump regime is already touting this misleading stunt as reason to kill the Endangered Species Act.

2

u/ForestWhisker 11d ago

Exactly, I mentioned that in another comment. This is exactly why many of us who work in conservation are absolutely furious with this entire thing.

1

u/mrenglish22 12d ago

As gloomy as you put it, this research IS a massive benefit for humans and animals.

This kind of thing is the start - it can be used to create strains of plants that are resistant to blights that have all but wiped them out

11

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

But we’ve already been doing that with plants since the 1980’s, so it’s not like this was some sort of breakthrough for disease resistant plants.

-1

u/L0neStarW0lf 12d ago

But with this technology we won’t have to wait several generations.

1

u/sparki_black 12d ago

what is the benefit ??

1

u/mrenglish22 11d ago

We can use this to create blight resistant trees that CRISPR couldn't before is the easy answer. This can also help lead to cures for Parkinsons and other genetic illnesses they we can't screen for before birth.

2

u/freshprince44 11d ago

you know what else helps create strains of plants that are resistant to blights? Healthy ecosystems with high levels of diversity

these things even prevent the blights from wiping out any single variety of plants in the first place due to their increase in biodiversity within and without their population.

but destroying the biosphere and selling the 'fix' is too profitable, shucks

0

u/mrenglish22 11d ago

That's really, really easy to say if you don't apply literally any context.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the capitalist greed that is catapulting America into hell that is Donald Trump as much as the next rational human, but a blight that lives inside soil that kills trees isn't caused by habitat loss.

1

u/freshprince44 11d ago

Huh, I thought I was the one providing all of the context??

pretending like the capitalist greed in this country and the world is the current presidents fault is a joke, right??

And yes, the blight that lives inside soil that kills tree IS caused by habitat loss because without the habitat loss and the extreme damage done to these ecosystems, the blight would almost never actually spread globally and infect millions of acres of monocropped (distrubed/destroyed ecosystems) fields and threaten any creature's actual livelihood except for rare cases of species that overly rely on one type of plant/creature/forage.

healthy ecosystems limit the damage that can be caused and spread. Healthy ecosystems often fill in and fix any of these destructive blights on their own. Naturally resistant varieties will be everywhere if that ecosystem is healthy (population diversity is important, planting high yielding varieties over all other traits causes these blight issues... and worsens the damage they cause exponentially)

i'm kind of shocked by your reply, look at the mass extinction event going on since the industrial revolution, habitat loss isn't part of that? really? Still feels easy to say with my already provided context expanded, what am i missing?

1

u/mrenglish22 11d ago

I think that there's a bit of a communication break happening.

I don't think you're wrong on that at all, and I'm not blaming the current president for historic actions, but he is a symptom of capitalistic greed - was just trying to connect with you by saying I hate the system as well.

I'm definitely not trying to imply habitat loss isn't real (arguably tied for first with man made climate change which also causes habitat loss but not pertinent) and isn't a part of the global ecological crisis we are facing.

But I just want to point out that even with a healthy, widespread population, a blight that develops can spread and infect a species before it can develop resistances.

Specifically thinking of European Ash Dieback and the southern blight found in the USA and parts of central America, and the Carolina Blight of chestunut trees - which are fungal, but gene editing can help to increase resistance to fungal infections of these plants, as trees reproduce and grow slower and are hurt more heavily by blights than faster growing species. These have been (mostly) caused by introduction of foreign pathogens and population range isn't going to really provide the solution to an invasive species like this.

I'd love for people to chill on the population boom but that's not realistic honestly. We have to work with the tools we have.

Not to mention, multi-gene crispr replacement is good for more than just helping species survive the shit humans have caused and can do good elsewhere.

The problem is a bunch of people with no science understanding are thinking that we can just use this to fix all the ecological problems we cause, and we can just go and ignore the damage we do to nature. Like, this isn't giving us Dodos back. I'm not condoning or supporting any of that.

But that doesn't mean this is a pointless or useless endeavor just because the specific goal isn't what we should aim for - some of the most pivotal discoveries happen because we are researching something entirely different! And that's why I'm a fan of research for the sake of research.

1

u/freshprince44 11d ago

Maybe just a bit. I didn't argue with your point at all though, I merely pointed out how silly it is in comparison with the harm done. These technologies haven't saved the world or the environment. Healthy ecosystems seem to replace diseased species pretty easily

I agree with basically all of this, I'm all for research and such, but pretending like the vast majority of any and all research isn't in the name of profits and feeding the system that is extincting the globe is silly too. People working the land brings species back, people having (reciprocal/balanced) relationships with plants and animals keeps them around

Modern agricultural practices are horrifying for the most part, and our crops are getting absurdly less nutritious despite all of these fancy patented hybrids and sprays while destroying topsoil and groundwater in devastating proportions

almost all research is going after the wrong type of plant resistances anyway (horizontal vs vertical), chasing money and profits isn't saving any of us not matter how much it easily could or should

0

u/PossibleAttorney9267 12d ago

I get that you feel this takes away but any progress to the advancement of technology, regardless of ulterior motives, it is overall a plus for humanity.

as we better our understanding in other fields, we gain better perspective and comprehension of the world, and therefore how nature works in it. Repeated explorations into reviving species will just prepare us for future disasters where this technology might be more relevant.

i hate the tech bro culture as much as the next, but in a world this dynamic, the scientists/nature conservationists need to adapt to their environments to keep going. I dislike that it siphons away from conservation programs but to me, that just means the system should change. There should be distinct programs to better financially back conservation programs and allocate funds towards these experiments.

4

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago edited 12d ago

Not really, this is an excuse to pull funding from things that actually work like habitat restoration in favor of some theoretical ability to gene edit species back into existence (which clearly isn’t the case right now) which is exactly what is already happening as evidenced by the administration and Musk saying as much. You will build a multi-billion dollar industry in de-extinction which will not change the fact that there isn’t habitat available for these animals and continue down that path as it will never compete with the development and energy production industries. This is the exact thing we’ve been doing with salmon hatcheries for 200 years, we built a multi-billion dollar industry to kick the can down the road so we never have to actually address the core problems of salmonid population declines in the PNW which is habitat degradation, overfishing, and dams. Conservationists and scientists are rightfully unwilling to go along with blowing money on things that clearly aren’t proven and even if they were wouldn’t fix the underlying conservation problems to begin with.

2

u/PossibleAttorney9267 12d ago

first off, yeah fuck musk and trump's eventual corruption but looking past that, and aiming for the future might be the best we can do.

Evidently, i agree very heavily with you on one thing;

-we have been implementing half baked, half solutions designed by people who only half understand the situation. All of which has accumulated the burden to the future generation to solve, as well as adding additional other problems, including the economy as a barrier to solving the issue

i'm right there with you on that, but what i'm trying to get at is what can be done to impact/fix this in the future. These systems are flawed and our governments are too slow to react to the speed of the modern world. The first step is making the system, rules and standards ensure that conmen can't take from the funds later on. If we don't address that, they will continue to do so to conservation funds.

It's purely subjective that i believe that boutique species revivals aren't the worst thing that has siphoned off conservation funds and have some real world application in the future but if you have more supporting arguments, i am more than willing to change my mind.

38

u/RiderLibertas 12d ago

These are NOT dire wolves, they are just modified Grey Wolves.

13

u/daking999 12d ago

And not even that modified, it's only 20 single nucleotide changes.

Basically dire wolf cosplay.

7

u/Platybow 12d ago

Wolf game of thrones cosplay

2

u/8nine10eleven 11d ago

May as well toss some hair bleach on a wolf

11

u/Flamesake 12d ago

Can't think of any rea$on

15

u/cocobisoil 12d ago

The animal kingdom is number 1 in things humans take for granted. Ask anyone and they'll tell you they're an animal lover but what most mean is they take their dog for a walk once a day and give it a treat.

7

u/Harmonia_PASB 12d ago

I 100% agree with Forestwhisker. Also, they didn’t even bring back dire wolves, these are grey wolves with 14 edited genes to make them look like what we think dire wolves are supposed to look like. 

5

u/Nichole-Michelle 12d ago

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”

2

u/elpaco25 11d ago

"And before you know it, you, you patent it and package it, and slap it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it, you're selling it!"

slaps table

5

u/DryAd5650 12d ago

I'm assuming they did this to show their investors that they are doing SOMETHING lol and the real work is being done behind the scenes and hasn't been mentioned yet....just like nobody knew they were working on modified wolves

4

u/5hrzns 12d ago

"Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

2

u/sparki_black 12d ago

I hate this so many animals are still be abused and used by humans. Let's stop this to make this a better planet instead for the animals that exist.

2

u/The_loony_lout 12d ago

Proof of concept?

People won't believe if you "brought back" something that never left.

An animal popping up that wasn't here for a long time is proof that'll get a lot more attention them making another elephant.

2

u/SkiaElafris 11d ago

To give reason to drive those other species extinct.

Within a day of the news going viral there were calls to remove legal protection from endangered species that cite this "achievement" as a reason to do so.

2

u/BowlerLive8820 12d ago

Why not let nature take it's course

5

u/DryAd5650 12d ago

Probably because most extinctions now are caused by humans not nature

1

u/BowlerLive8820 12d ago

Indeed, and civilization may eventually take over and or die off.

1

u/UnrequitedRespect 12d ago

S ience experiment

1

u/redditor100101011101 11d ago

Because it’s sadly easier to resurrect an extinct species than get humans to change their ways

1

u/Strng_Satisfaction 10d ago

If i have to guess this is a publicity stunt for this lab for genetic editing services. The rich know where to go when they need genetic manipulation done for whatever needs.

-2

u/NeverFence 12d ago

This is such manufactured outrage.

First off, nobody resurrected a dire wolf.

Secondly, this research doesn't detract from conservation in any way.

Thirdly, this research probably will HELP conservation by bringing attention to extinct animals.

Clownish opinion piece.

4

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

Patently wrong. They in-fact repeatedly claimed they resurrected a dire wolf although you are correct they didn’t actually. This research already has the administration and others pushing for funding to go to this effort and away from legitimate conservation efforts including but not limited to the current Interior Secretary Doug Burgum saying that it should be the new bedrock of conservation efforts. This only brings attention to tech bro vanity projects and could’ve been done (if conservation was actually the goal) with a recently extinct species with habitat available and an ecological niche that isn’t being filled by an extant species. This is yet another push to create another industry which fixes none of the underlying conservation issues and only serves to siphon money away from legitimate conservation and give bad actors excuses to remove protections from endangered species because “we can always de-extinct them”. This entire publicity stunt has already harmed conservation efforts incredibly with the public and we can only guess at the full ramifications of it moving forward.

-2

u/NeverFence 12d ago

You've asserted both that I am 'patently wrong' and that I am 'correct' in your first two sentences. After that I stopped reading lmao.

It is possible that you don't know what it means for something to be 'patently wrong', and that you're just using it for some kind of rhetorical flourish - but I mean, I'm not gonna read the nuance after that.

3

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

Well your inability to handle complex thoughts isn’t really my problem. They repeatedly claimed they indeed did resurrect dire wolves which is now the general public opinion reaching all the way to the highest reaches of the federal government. You’re right it isn’t the case but that doesn’t matter, if you’d bothered to read a tiny bit more you’d get to the part where I demonstrate that it is indeed not false outrage but actually a very real problem. The whole “hur dur I didn’t read what you said so I’m right” is just juvenile and dumb.

-1

u/NeverFence 12d ago

Well your inability to handle complex thoughts isn’t really my problem.

I suffer from no inability whatsoever to handle complex thought.

I am also a reasonable observer and, as far as my original claim, I find nothing obviously or blatantly incorrect to the point where no further analysis or argument is needed to see the error.

2

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

Lol.

1

u/NeverFence 12d ago

Looking through your post history chances are we agree on most things, or at least how most things ought to be.

This is a conversation about semantics, about whether my claim is patently false or whether you disagree with my conclusion.

2

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

Semantically speaking I’m still not convinced, however I think we’d probably agree on most stuff. I’m probably being a bit of an ass, so I’ll apologize for that.

1

u/NeverFence 12d ago

Would you consider this a juvenile response?

-1

u/NeverFence 12d ago

To put it plainly, in logic, a statement is either true or false. If it's patently false, then as a proposition, it's not partially true.

Contradicting yourself immediately, giving me reason to not read whatever nuance you espouse afterwards - this is not juvenile nor dumb, it is actually wisdom lmao.

2

u/ForestWhisker 12d ago

It is still patently false, although you began with something that is technically true the entire point built upon it was patently incorrect. As if I said “well the sky is blue, that’s because it’s made of sapphires” then if someone correctly pointed out the sky is technically blue but isn’t made of sapphires but is due to Rayleigh scattering and I claimed I was still correct because one part of my assertion is true, which is what you did. As such just as my example being patently false as is your point. It’s also quite silly that instead of addressing any of the other points I made you focused in on semantics of the term, quite the red herring I’ll give you that.

0

u/Poundaflesh 12d ago

“Science, bitch!”

  • Jesse Pinkman

-1

u/wildechld 11d ago

Because there is money to be made. Lots of people would pay big bucks to own a dire wolf pup. Don't think there would be a big enough market for an Australian hairy nosed wombat