dire wolves and de-extinction

Can technology save us from our ecological mess?

Jay Doubleyou: is technology going to save us?

It might help to save the ecological mess from getting worse:

Jay Doubleyou: flora and fauna: appearing and disappearing

And one stand-out species which might need saving is the wolf:

Jay Doubleyou: sharing our lives with wolves: on bbc's shared planet

What about de-extinction? 

De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that either resembles or is an extinct organism.[1] There are several ways to carry out the process of de-extinction. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although genome editing and selective breeding have also been considered. Similar techniques have been applied to certain endangered species, in hopes to boost their genetic diversity. The only method of the three that would provide an animal with the same genetic identity is cloning.[2] There are benefits and drawbacks to the process of de-extinction ranging from technological advancements to ethical issues.

De-extinction - Wikipedia

It sounds good, coming from the company that's doing a lot of it:

The process of generating an organism that both resembles and is genetically similar to an extinct species by resurrecting its lost lineage of core genes; engineering natural resistances; and enhancing adaptability that will allow it to thrive in today’s environment of climate change, dwindling resources, disease and human interference.

Solving the Colossal Problem of Extinction | Colossal

But others aren't so sure: 

Colossal’s claim that this is “the first successful case of de-extinction” is wrong in fact, void of motivation (except commercial), and ethically questionable – these wolves have been genetically modified for no medical or ecological reason. Scientists are furious. “To see this work being done with such a casual disregard not only for the truth, but for life itself is genuinely abhorrent to me,” said one palaeoecologist.

Critical Mass: The dire truth about ‘de-extinction’ - The New European

Headlines like the one that appeared on the front cover of TIME magazine – with the word “extinct” crossed out – seed a false hope that no matter what environmental damage is done, species loss can be easily undone.

The risk is that de-extinction will be used as an ultimate offset for any environmental impact.

Humans fear death. It is possibly our most primal instinct. We mourn and feel great sadness for the death of an individual, not only because they are gone, but because it is irreversible and final. Permanent.

That finality is the same for humans or any living animal. It is what makes fighting biodiversity loss such an urgent concern, so much so that people risk their lives to prevent it, with 150 wildlife rangers dying each year around the world in their fight to protect endangered species.

Protest movements like the Extinction Rebellion draw attention to irreparable damage to biodiversity. Ethan Wilkinson/Unsplash

In the conservation movement, raising awareness of “martyr” species – like the northern white rhino and the passenger pigeon – helps underline the argument in favour of protecting current species. Framing extinction as temporary creates false hope and undermines motivation for real conservation action.

‘De-extinction’ of dire wolves promotes false hope: technology can’t undo extinction

Chief among the concerns raised was that claiming it is possible to bring back extinct species may actually lead to more existing species being lost. It could give politicians and industries the idea that damage to the environment can be fixed by resurrecting species.

Such a message could be particularly damaging at a time when the US is withdrawing from international agreements on climate change and revoking measures intended protect the environment and wildlife, says David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist and independent consultant based in Washington, DC.

"It's beyond irresponsible for these people [Colossal] to be claiming some sort of conservation victory in this environment," he says.

This worry was quickly reinforced when Doug Burgum, the US Secretary of the Interior – who the Colossal team met with in advance of their dire wolf announcement – praised the company's work on X as a new "bedrock for modern species conservation". Burgum also criticised the ineffectiveness of the "endangered species list" – presumably a reference to the Red List of Threatened Species, drawn up by the International Union of Conservation (IUCN) or the list of threatened & endangered species maintained by branches of the US Government – thanks to what he characterised as a focus on regulation. "Since the dawn of our nation, it has been innovation – not regulation – that has spawned American greatness," he wrote.

Dire wolves and woolly mammoths: Why scientists are worried about de-extinction - BBC Future

.

.

.