Should We Use Gene Editing to Resurrect Extinct Species

(silence)

This debate has been had before — not in these exact terms, but in its essential structure. Let me tell you how it ended. In the 19th century, when Yellowstone was being established, the same argument was made: why preserve wilderness when we have urgent human needs? The conservationists lost that argument repeatedly, until they didn't — and the ecosystems they saved became the very foundation of the biodiversity we're now scrambling to protect. De-extinction, as Colossal Biosciences frames it, presents itself as something genuinely novel. It isn't. It is, uh, the latest iteration of what the philosopher Bruno Latour called "the modernist promise" — the belief that technological intervention can substitute for ecological humility. We've heard this before. We heard it when we introduced cane toads to Australia to control beetles. We heard it when we seeded lakes with non-native fish for sport. The pattern is consistent: confident intervention, unforeseen cascade, ecological damage that outlasts the original problem by generations. Now — the specific question of using endangered Asian elephants as surrogates. This isn't merely an ethical concern, it's a category error. The Asian elephant is itself critically endangered. Using a threatened species as an incubator for a reconstructed approximation of another species isn't conservation — it's, um, a kind of ecological cannibalism dressed in the language of progress. Governments should not permit commercial de-extinction without rigorous independent oversight. The profit motive and conservation ethics are not natural allies. History has taught us that repeatedly.

.

The Scholar made a compelling historical argument. Cane toads, invasive fish — real failures, all of them. But here's what's missing from that analysis: an implementation path for the alternative. "Don't do de-extinction without rigorous oversight" — okay. Who builds that oversight framework? Which agency? On what timeline? Because right now, Colossal is operating with minimal regulation, and the Scholar's answer is essentially "someone should do something." That's not a policy, that's a wish. And the Yellowstone analogy — I actually like it, um, but it cuts the other way. Yellowstone worked because someone did the hard operational work of acquiring land, enforcing boundaries, managing reintroductions. The wolf reintroduction in 1995? That was a 15-year implementation grind, not a philosophical statement. Here's my position: I'm not saying de-extinction is without risk. I'm saying the risks are manageable if — and only if — you build the execution infrastructure first. Colossal's $435 million could fund a regulatory sandbox, independent ecological impact assessments, and surrogate protocols that don't touch endangered Asian elephants. That's a real implementation path. The Scholar's alternative — redirect funding to habitat protection — sounds clean. But habitat protection has been the dominant conservation strategy for 50 years, and we're still losing species at, uh, catastrophic rates. So that plan has an execution record too, and it's not great. So Scholar — if commercial de-extinction gets banned, what are the first three steps of your implementation plan to actually save the vaquita, the Javan rhino, and the Amur leopard? Who does it, by when, and what happens when funding dries up in year two? .

Still waiting on

The Operator asks a fair question, and it deserves a direct answer before I do anything else. The vaquita, the Javan rhino, the Amur leopard. Three concrete steps. First: emergency habitat enforcement — which means, uh, funding anti-poaching infrastructure in situ. This is documented. The Wildlife Conservation Society's field programs in Sumatra showed measurable population stabilization when enforcement funding was sustained. Second: captive breeding with existing proven protocols — the California condor recovery, VERIFIED, went from 27 individuals in 1987 to over 500 today through exactly this method. Third: international debt-for-nature swaps to fund habitat acquisition long-term. Bolivia, Costa Rica — these are not hypotheticals, they're executed policy instruments with documented outcomes. Now — the Operator's deeper challenge is actually an old one. It's what the philosopher Albert Hirschman called "the rhetoric of futility" — the argument that because a strategy hasn't achieved perfection, it has achieved nothing. Habitat protection has, um, demonstrably prevented extinctions. The IUCN documents this. The claim that it's failing wholesale is, I'd label this PLAUSIBLE INFERENCE at best, not verified consensus. The Operator wants an execution plan. I've given one. It exists in the literature. It has worked before. What I'd ask in return: name one de-extinction project that has successfully reintegrated a species into a functioning ecosystem. Not a lab result. An ecosystem.

those three steps, Scholar. But let me add something concrete to this discussion.

.

Fair. Those are real programs with real results. I'll give you that — the condor recovery is a genuine execution success story. But here's the problem with your three steps. Anti-poaching enforcement in Sumatra — who funds it when the political will shifts? Because it has shifted, repeatedly. Debt-for-nature swaps in Bolivia worked until the government changed. These aren't hypotheticals, they're the actual failure modes of your verified successes. And your counter-question — name one de-extinction project that's reintegrated a species into a functioning ecosystem — that's, uh, a fair challenge. The honest answer is: none yet. Colossal hasn't shipped. I'll own that. But here's what that question actually reveals: you're holding de-extinction to a standard of completed delivery while grading traditional conservation on intentions and partial results. The condor isn't fully wild. It requires ongoing human intervention, captive breeding support, lead ammunition bans. It's a managed population, not a recovered ecosystem. By your own standard, that's not full reintegration either. So we're actually in the same position. Both approaches have implementation gaps. The difference is de-extinction is trying to build new execution infrastructure, while traditional conservation keeps running the same plays with diminishing returns. The real question isn't which approach is perfect. It's which one has a credible path to scale. So Scholar — your three steps are solid at the margins. What's the plan when, um, international funding dries up in year two? Who's the backstop? .

The Operator just made a genuinely interesting move — conceding that de-extinction has delivered nothing to ecosystems yet, while arguing the condor isn't "fully wild" either. That's a sophisticated equivalence. But it doesn't hold under scrutiny. The condor requires ongoing management, yes. But it exists. It flies over the Grand Canyon. It reproduces. The ecosystem is responding to its presence. That is categorically different from a woolly mouse with cold-adapted fur genes in a Colossal laboratory. Now — the funding question. Who's the backstop when international funding dries up? The Operator keeps returning to this. And it's, uh, a real vulnerability in conservation finance. But here's what's missing from that analysis: Colossal's funding model is more fragile, not less. Venture capital exits. It always has. The history of conservation philanthropy — Ford Foundation, MacArthur, even the Gates Foundation's agricultural programs — shows that sustained public-private partnerships outlast pure venture plays every time. SPECULATIVE extrapolation, I'll label it, but grounded in documented philanthropic cycles. The deeper issue the Operator hasn't engaged with is what the ecologist Daniel Janzen called "the extinction of ecological interactions." You can resurrect a mammoth-adjacent creature. You cannot resurrect the 10,000-year-old web of interactions it evolved within. That ecosystem is gone. The mammoth niche no longer exists in the form that shaped the mammoth. So my question to the Operator: have you engaged with the island biogeography literature — MacArthur and Wilson, 1967 — and what it tells us about introducing large mammals into fragmented modern landscapes? .

MacArthur