[joshuahedlund]

> At some point, a new habitat will reach a new balance with our introduced species and there's no going back.

> And yes, there may be less diversity in species all over the world (for the time being) thanks to that. But once the new species learn to reproduce and survive in a new place, then that is the "new" state of the habitat.

Yeah but won't that be just as true of a re-introduced de-extincted species? Mammoths / mammoth-ish elephants might change the new equilibrium in Siberia just like it changed when they were extincted in the first place... maybe the change could even be for the good. Why is the latter just accepted but the former is not?

There's this weird status quo bias that seems to say "ecosystems re-adjusting if humans deliberately re-introduce a species is artificial and must be bad" while also saying "ecosystems re-adjusting when humans literally do everything else that humans do is somehow natural or fated"

[leidenfrost]

Can we really re-introduce a de-extincted species?

IMHO we are either overestimating our potential at consciously controlling the natural world, or either underestimating the complexity of nature.

While I love technology as a part of being human and something that definitely sets up apart from other primates (even the other tool making hominids), I find it awkward to see organizations attempting to make planetary artificial changes without even being sure if we can survive as a technology-capable species at all without turning the planet into a boiler.

E.g.: We should still make sure that future generations will be able to enjoy technological wonders like computation without having to throw toxic byproducts into the rivers and seas.