USA TODAY

The dire wolf went extinct 13,000 years ago. What to know...

A biotech company made history with the birth of three genetically engineered wolves: What we know about these prehistoric predators.

Like most genies once let out of the bottle, it's very hard to get them back in again. Such has become the case with gene editing and bioengineering. With this in mind, our questions may start to move more towards asking when and where is it acceptable to modify genes or bring back extinct life-forms? Instead of, whether it is acceptable at all to engage in the practices at all?

In the case of the Dire-wolf; while bringing back an extinct animal (or at least a reemergence of some of it's genetic coding in a new animal) is an impressive feat of bioengineering we ought also to ask of ourselves, how much responsibility do we have towards an animal we've created and shaped, through either direct genetic engineering and manipulation or selective breeding, in comparison with other animals whose evolution we have unintentionally shaped due to our mastery of the world landscapes?

As it stands, even endangered species of modern wolves face hurdles to reintroduction to wild spaces due to public and livestock safety concerns, other conservations efforts and the risk of accidentally destroying an environment by introducing an invasive or detrimental species.

Since people are still asking the questions like "Should wolves be reintroduced to X region?" How much more complicated will the debate become when you ask whether or not, bigger, stronger, genetically modified wolves should be newly introduced to anywhere?

The reason I brought up selective breeding earlier, is because for a lack of a better way of putting it, we have made so many mistakes and unintentional harms in this area, that we need to ask whether or not we owe our domesticated animals restorative bioengineering in order to rectify those wrongs?

Have you ever heard the sound a bulldog makes when it is struggling to breathe? So you know when it is struggling to breathe? Pretty much all the time. Due to selective breeding for shorter and shorter snouts, over time the bulldogs airways have become more and more constricted, that doesn't even begin to get into the topic of forced inbreeding and the impact that has had on many different breeds of dog.

One domestic animal that has been almost completely shut out in the cold are all the different varieties of domesticated pigeon. I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard them described as sky rats, and I can't help but wonder whether or not we would completely abandon domesticated dogs and cats if we found a satisfactory technological replacement for either the work they do or companionship they provide?

There are also less intentional ways our domesticated animals could be abandoned. Like most living beings, we are still fragile and at the mercy of both regional and planetary extinction events through natural and manmade disasters. How would these animals survive in a world without us? Some may find niches or environments to thrive in, others may not be so lucky. I certainly can't see a bulldog being a very effective hunter in the wild.

Underlying all of this are hard to answer questions about where we draw the line when it comes to genetic modification. We could use it to better our lives, reverse mistakes etc but who makes those decisions? There are also many many ways in which genetic modification could be used to wreak havoc on ourselves, provide more options for violent regimes to oppress us, etc.

I am very interested to hear what people's thoughts on all this are. I do think a feat like bringing back dire wolves is cool and fully lays out some inspiration for beneficial uses of the technology. Of that there can be little doubt.

USA TODAY

The dire wolf went extinct 13,000 years ago. What to know...

A biotech company made history with the birth of three genetically engineered wolves: What we know about these prehistoric predators.

Like most genies once let out of the bottle, it's very hard to get them back in again. Such has become the case with gene editing and bioengineering. With this in mind, our questions may start to move more towards asking when and where is it acceptable to modify genes or bring back extinct life-forms? Instead of, whether it is acceptable at all to engage in the practices at all?

In the case of the Dire-wolf; while bringing back an extinct animal (or at least a reemergence of some of it's genetic coding in a new animal) is an impressive feat of bioengineering we ought also to ask of ourselves, how much responsibility do we have towards an animal we've created and shaped, through either direct genetic engineering and manipulation or selective breeding, in comparison with other animals whose evolution we have unintentionally shaped due to our mastery of the world landscapes?

As it stands, even endangered species of modern wolves face hurdles to reintroduction to wild spaces due to public and livestock safety concerns, other conservations efforts and the risk of accidentally destroying an environment by introducing an invasive or detrimental species.

Since people are still asking the questions like "Should wolves be reintroduced to X region?" How much more complicated will the debate become when you ask whether or not, bigger, stronger, genetically modified wolves should be newly introduced to anywhere?

The reason I brought up selective breeding earlier, is because for a lack of a better way of putting it, we have made so many mistakes and unintentional harms in this area, that we need to ask whether or not we owe our domesticated animals restorative bioengineering in order to rectify those wrongs?

Have you ever heard the sound a bulldog makes when it is struggling to breathe? So you know when it is struggling to breathe? Pretty much all the time. Due to selective breeding for shorter and shorter snouts, over time the bulldogs airways have become more and more constricted, that doesn't even begin to get into the topic of forced inbreeding and the impact that has had on many different breeds of dog.

One domestic animal that has been almost completely shut out in the cold are all the different varieties of domesticated pigeon. I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard them described as sky rats, and I can't help but wonder whether or not we would completely abandon domesticated dogs and cats if we found a satisfactory technological replacement for either the work they do or companionship they provide?

There are also less intentional ways our domesticated animals could be abandoned. Like most living beings, we are still fragile and at the mercy of both regional and planetary extinction events through natural and manmade disasters. How would these animals survive in a world without us? Some may find niches or environments to thrive in, others may not be so lucky. I certainly can't see a bulldog being a very effective hunter in the wild.

Underlying all of this are hard to answer questions about where we draw the line when it comes to genetic modification. We could use it to better our lives, reverse mistakes etc but who makes those decisions? There are also many many ways in which genetic modification could be used to wreak havoc on ourselves, provide more options for violent regimes to oppress us, etc.

I am very interested to hear what people's thoughts on all this are. I do think a feat like bringing back dire wolves is cool and fully lays out some inspiration for beneficial uses of the technology. Of that there can be little doubt.

To be honest I think this is all hype , from yet another Trumpy technofascist, in this case this guy Ben Lamm who runs (the modestly named) Colossal Biosciences. They are not recreating an extinct species, just playing around with the grey wolf's genes to simulate some superficial characteristics of the extinct dire wolf.

Lamm talks far right shit, for instance claiming, absurdly, that there is a law in the UK that only negative news must be reported, and that wind turbines generate more CO2 emissions than they save*. He is an admirer of Musk. I would not trust this charlatan further than I could throw him. I would not be at all surprised to find he has some "Boys from Brazil" meisterplan up his sleeve for eugenic tinkering with human beings. I think this guy and his company should be treated with the greatest suspicion.

(By the way, the urban "sky rats" are actually rock doves, one variety of pigeon that is well-adapted to living where there are buildings. The wood pigeon is a quite different and far more attractive creature.)

• per article by Henry Mance in this weekend's edition of the FT.

Edited April 13Apr 13 by exchemist

One danger is the idea (which has already been advanced) that we can be as careless and exploitative with the environment as we want, because reintroduction of a species is NBD.

Also think of Jurassic Park scenario...

While I think Dire Wolves seemingly are cool but bringing these back and re-introduce these into this period of time where when etc ecology / environment etc could be different to those Dire Wolves, not sure whether if adaption will occur fully? There are probably countless questions about that. I don't fully know much about bio engineering etc but just my 2 cents.

To be honest I think this is all hype , from yet another Trumpy technofascist, in this case this guy Ben Lamm who runs (the modestly named) Colossal Biosciences. They are not recreating an extinct species, just playing around with the grey wolf's genes to simulate some superficial characteristics of the extinct dire wolf.

Lamm talks far right shit, for instance claiming, absurdly, that there is a law in the UK that only negative news must be reported, and that wind turbines generate more CO2 emissions than they save*. He is an admirer of Musk. I would not trust this charlatan further than I could throw him. I would not be at all surprised to find he has some "Boys from Brazil" meisterplan up his sleeve for eugenic tinkering with human beings. I think this guy and his company should be treated with the greatest suspicion.

(By the way, the urban "sky rats" are actually rock doves, one variety of pigeon that is well-adapted to living where there are buildings. The wood pigeon is a quite different and far more attractive creature.)

• per article by Henry Mance in this weekend's edition of the FT.

Thanks for that bit of context, it can be so hard to tell who operates these projects or why; even to this day I keep finding myself shocked at just how many South African Nazi descendants are involved with the US government.

That said; the meat of the discussion shouldn't be thrown out because I was unaware of the political ideology of the people behind the creation of these modified wolves.

My main points about genetic modification being used as a remedy to the mistakes of selective breeding still warrant sincere discussion and the reason I posted this in the ethics section was because to me there was a non-political discussion about the subject to be had.

One danger is the idea (which has already been advanced) that we can be as careless and exploitative with the environment as we want, because reintroduction of a species is NBD.

My argument is simply that we have been careless and exploitative and so have a duty to remedy certain wrongs.

I think we both agree that careless reintroduction of certain species into the wild isn't a particular good motive for genetically modifying anything. Improving the quality of life of animals we have kind of fucked over however, that I think has some merit.

My argument is simply that we have been careless and exploitative and so have a duty to remedy certain wrongs.

I don’t disagree, but human industrialization didn’t cause the extinction of the dire wolf.

I don’t disagree, but human industrialization didn’t cause the extinction of the dire wolf.

It's probably not coming across clearly enough but the dire wolf being extinct, is not one of the wrongs I was referencing and I gave other examples in my OP nor did I say we caused said extinction through industrial or other means. Never said it, don't think it.

My main points about genetic modification being used as a remedy to the mistakes of selective breeding still warrant sincere discussion and the reason I posted this in the ethics section was because to me there was a non-political discussion about the subject to be had.

I think there are a lot of issues and few benefits. The major one being that the major driver of extinction is the reckless destruction of habitats. Even if this was not a stunt (and there are reasons to believe it is) it doesn't address the root problem. If the technology was perfected we basically found a way to make interesting exhibits for zoos but are doing little beyond that.

Thanks for that bit of context, it can be so hard to tell who operates these projects or why; even to this day I keep finding myself shocked at just how many South African Nazi descendants are involved with the US government.

That said; the meat of the discussion shouldn't be thrown out because I was unaware of the political ideology of the people behind the creation of these modified wolves.

My main points about genetic modification being used as a remedy to the mistakes of selective breeding still warrant sincere discussion and the reason I posted this in the ethics section was because to me there was a non-political discussion about the subject to be had.

My argument is simply that we have been careless and exploitative and so have a duty to remedy certain wrongs.

I think we both agree that careless reintroduction of certain species into the wild isn't a particular good motive for genetically modifying anything. Improving the quality of life of animals we have kind of fucked over however, that I think has some merit.

I don't see any point in "restoring" or rectifying mistakes in selectively bred domesticated animals. For such animals the remedy is simple, surely? Stop breeding them. That applies to breeds of dog, or battery hens that can't stand up, or what have you.

It seems to me this is a fake technology, producing pastiches, that is being hyped as something it is not. A bit like LLM AI. Or quantum computing. Or crypto currency. These are all techie ways to fleece gullible investors, by means of promises far beyond what is anywhere near to being achieved.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by exchemist

I don't see any point in "restoring" or rectifying mistakes in selectively bred domesticated animals. For such animals the remedy is simple, surely? Stop breeding them. That applies to breeds of dog, or battery hens that can't stand up, or what have you.

It seems to me this is a fake technology, producing pastiches, that is being hyped as something it is not. A bit like LLM AI. Or quantum computing. Or crypto currency. These are all techie ways to fleece gullible investors, by means of promises far beyond what is anywhere near to being achieved.

Let's assume people won't stop breeding them, because that's likely what will not happen. We can also recognize that this is a individualistic determination and you'll hardly be able to convince a dog owner, to put down a dog with breed specific respiratory issues that don't stop it from being able to live but do impact on its quality of life.

I'd also add that the very sentiment of "just stop breeding it" like it's a line of car in need of a recall, is the same anthropocentric objectification that led us to selectively breed for cosmetic reasons, against the animals health interests.

It's still a living being, one that we fucked up, I don't think genocide is a good answer.

Let's assume people won't stop breeding them, because that's likely what will not happen. We can also recognize that this is a individualistic determination and you'll hardly be able to convince a dog owner, to put down a dog with breed specific respiratory issues that don't stop it from being able to live but do impact on its quality of life.

I'd also add that the very sentiment of "just stop breeding it" like it's a line of car in need of a recall, is the same anthropocentric objectification that led us to selectively breed for cosmetic reasons, against the animals health interests.

It's still a living being, one that we fucked up, I don't think genocide is a good answer.

Genocide is quite the wrong term. You just forbid the breeding of animals that are congenitally unhealthy and let the breed fade away through lack of offspring. A breed is not a living being. It is a class of individuals. Genocide involves killing every individual of the breed, or race. That is quite different.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by exchemist

13 hours ago, MSC said:

It's probably not coming across clearly enough but the dire wolf being extinct, is not one of the wrongs I was referencing and I gave other examples in my OP nor did I say we caused said extinction through industrial or other means. Never said it, don't think it.

You talked about breeding and domestication, which is a different issue from extinction. Did you mention bringing back extinct species other than the dire wolf?

And there’s also the issue that this effort is not actually bringing back a dire wolf. They seem to be massively overstating what they are doing. I’ve seen it described as being 20 dire wolf edits to the grey wolf genome. It would not be accurate to say it’s a dire wolf genome. It’s a grey wolf genome modified to make it look more like a dire wolf (bigger, whiter coat and denser fur)

One comment I read was “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Genocide is quite the wrong term. You just forbid the breeding of animals that are congenitally unhealthy and let the breed fade away through lack of offspring. A breed is not a living being. It is a class of individuals. Genocide involves killing every individual of the breed, or race. That is quite different.

I haven't forbid anything? I'm saying this has happened, whether forbidden or not these are consequences of ours dogs have to live with.

A class of individuals is still made up of living things and your definition of genocide is very narrow and is at odds with the actual definition of genocide which also includes reducing a population via culling. Not sure what is difficult to grasp about this but I'm going to cut it short here because I feel like y'all aren't reading for comprehension and are misunderstanding me at every point. Clearly nobody is ready to have these discussions when they can't even read me for comprehension. Ffs.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Genocide is quite the wrong term. You just forbid the breeding of animals that are congenitally unhealthy and let the breed fade away through lack of offspring. A breed is not a living being. It is a class of individuals. Genocide involves killing every individual of the breed, or race. That is quite different.

Also if people are going to go to all the trouble of wasting resources to half ass edit genomes, why not do it for better reasons than calling a genetically modified grey wolf, a Dire-wolf?

Also how the fuck are you guys reading me so wrong? I even said this "the case of the Dire-wolf; while bringing back an extinct animal (or at least a reemergence of some of it's genetic coding in a new animal" because I knew there would be a language criticism about even using the world dire wolf.

Quite frankly it seems like I've wasted my time with this topic since nobody is actually engaging with it properly. Ignore quote below was a mistake.

Just don't waste my time with not even reading what I'm really saying and putting shit in my mouth, not in the fucking mood.

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

I haven't forbid anything? I'm saying this has happened, whether forbidden or not these are consequences of ours dogs have to live with.

A class of individuals is still made up of living things and your definition of genocide is very narrow and is at odds with the actual definition of genocide which also includes reducing a population via culling. Not sure what is difficult to grasp about this but I'm going to cut it short here because I feel like y'all aren't reading for comprehenson and are misunderstanding me at every point. Clearly nobody is ready to have these discussions when they can't even read me for comprehension. Ffs.

8 minutes ago, MSC said:

I haven't forbid anything? I'm saying this has happened, whether forbidden or not these are consequences of ours dogs have to live with.

A class of individuals is still made up of living things and your definition of genocide is very narrow and is at odds with the actual definition of genocide which also includes reducing a population via culling. Not sure what is difficult to grasp about this but I'm going to cut it short here because I feel like y'all aren't reading for comprehension and are misunderstanding me at every point. Clearly nobody is ready to have these discussions when they can't even read me for comprehension. Ffs.

Culling is killing. That is quite different from not allowing an animal to breed.

Also I hate the new UI. Can't control or edit anywhere near as well

Fuck it I need a break from this forum for awhile.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Culling is killing. That is quite different from not allowing an animal to breed.

Have you ever actually owned a dog or a pet at all? So just making sure that an animal around today, is not around tomorrow, whether culling or antinatalism, it's genocide. I don't plan on changing that definition to suit you.

Honestly I'm shocked that nobody here is actually taking up the actual discussion and y'all are getting obsessed over shit I haven't fucking said. Just fuck off the lot of you, if you don't have anything to say about the subject then stfu and keep your thoughts to yourself. I think it's great that you want to just get rid of all the "biologically inferior" animals and somehow mental gymnastics your way into not calling it genocide. Seriously go fuck yourself exchemist.

Yeah guys let's just leave animals with health issues, with those health issues that we gave them, better to throw them all away like trash and pretend like nothing happened right? Or better yet just remove them from the population. Death to all bulldogs am I right? Let's focus on fake wolves and debate on what to call them. Clearly using genetic modification for veterinary science is just a fucked up crazy idea. Give me a fucking break.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can have the right idea for humans and yet have so many moral blindspots when it comes to any other species.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by MSC

Take it a bit easy if its okay for me to say that, @MSC

I don't think anyone here meant ill intention or something like that, its probably the category ethics this thread is under... is difficult to discuss and is close to political but not, still...

If the Dire Wolves does exist, then I'm already thinking for their wellbeings.. probably should be relocated to Greenlands or something like that under observation by top animal conservation professionals or something like that.

18 hours ago, MSC said:

My argument is simply that we have been careless and exploitative and so have a duty to remedy certain wrongs.

I think we both agree that careless reintroduction of certain species into the wild isn't a particular good motive for genetically modifying anything. Improving the quality of life of animals we have kind of fucked over however, that I think has some merit.

Just catching up, so I'll skip over what seems a little friction going on. I agree on the eco stewardship. This should include repairing habitats, restoring keystone species, pollinators, trophic cascades, etc. But I don't see gen mods as a good idea, if there are extant members of the wild species. Better to foster their reproductive health and restoring a normal population with reasonable genetic diversity. One exception, if we are sufficiently skilled in our tinkering, would be remedying population bottlenecks where you just don't have enough surviving wild members to rebuild the population with healthy genetic diversity. But inserting a healthy range of alleles would be quite challenging and not to be done carelessly. It should only be considered for the most extreme situations. It's so easy to mess up with ecosystem tinkering and have another Australia on our hands. And it's also worth noting the concept of the ecological niche - sometimes after a species goes extinct, another species gradually fills the niche that was vacated, and you return to a more stable ecosystem. And there's really no retrieving the former ecosystem - new forms (endless forms most beautiful and wonderful, as Chuck D would say) have arisen and adapted.

My basic ethos is that I see the Earth as being for all living creatures, not just a human playground. If we're clever enough to fuck it all up, then we need to be clever enough to undo our damage, or failing that, foster a new succession ecosystem with adaptively strong communities, healthy biomass, good carbon uptake and sequestering and so on. While the dire wolf idea is silly, having a few around to deal with the sociopathic Joffreys of the world and occasional white walker might not be so bad.

AND THANK YOU ADMIN FOR FIXING THE QUOTE FUNCTION!

Edited April 14Apr 14 by TheVat
addendumb

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

Have you ever actually owned a dog or a pet at all? So just making sure that an animal around today, is not around tomorrow, whether culling or antinatalism, it's genocide. I don't plan on changing that definition to suit you.

Honestly I'm shocked that nobody here is actually taking up the actual discussion and y'all are getting obsessed over shit I haven't fucking said. Just fuck off the lot of you, if you don't have anything to say about the subject then stfu and keep your thoughts to yourself. I think it's great that you want to just get rid of all the "biologically inferior" animals and somehow mental gymnastics your way into not calling it genocide. Seriously go fuck yourself exchemist.

Yeah guys let's just leave animals with health issues, with those health issues that we gave them, better to throw them all away like trash and pretend like nothing happened right? Or better yet just remove them from the population. Death to all bulldogs am I right? Let's focus on fake wolves and debate on what to call them. Clearly using genetic modification for veterinary science is just a fucked up crazy idea. Give me a fucking break.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can have the right idea for humans and yet have so many moral blindspots when it comes to any other species.

This is ridiculous. There is all the difference in the world between killing creatures and just being careful not to bring yet more of them into existence in the future. If we have bred intrinsically unhealthy varieties of animal, we should stop it. Stop them procreating in ways that perpetuate the unhealthy outcome.

In nature, such unhealthy creatures would fail to breed well and would die out anyway, because of natural selection. It is only by interfering with nature that we have been able to create them.

To take your dog example, we should not allow one of these unhealthy dogs to mate with another of the same breed. We should make sure they are used only to breed mongrels. The mongrels will have a better chance of being healthy and, over time, the unhealthy breed will vanish, all without needing to kill a single dog.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by exchemist

4 hours ago, swansont said:

One comment I read was “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

Not likely, though it's reasonable to assume it could run for high political office in the United States.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is ridiculous. There is all the difference in the world between killing creatures and just being careful not to bring yet more of them into existence in the future. If we have bred intrinsically unhealthy varieties of animal, we should stop it. Stop them procreating in ways that perpetuate the unhealthy outcome.

In nature, such unhealthy creatures would fail to breed well and would die out anyway, because of natural selection. It is only by interfering with nature that we have been able to create them.

To take your dog example, we should not allow one of these unhealthy dogs to mate with another of the same type. We should make sure they are used only to breed mongrels. The mongrels will have a better chance of being healthy and, over time, the unhealthy breed will vanish, all without needing to kill a single dog.

Not sure how your meaning was so misunderstood. Yes, not continuing to breed bulldogs (or the epileptic seizure prone Irish Wolfhound, etc.) does not seem genocidal. We can give our pets good lives, and then encourage the next generation to adopt smart and adaptive mongrels. For one thing, if our human civilization ever collapsed, how long could we keep supplying kibble to our canine friends? It's likely many would have to resume pack life out in the wild, and it would be best if we kept companions that had the genetic diversity and mongrel smarts to make such a transition. This dog-tastrophe has happened on smaller scales, during massive social upheavals and wars. Surely it's better if we have canid species better able to deal with the unreliability of their human companions.

32 minutes ago, MSC said:

Honestly I'm shocked that nobody here is actually taking up the actual discussion and y'all are getting obsessed over shit I haven't fucking said.

Has it occurred to you that we can state our view without it being an attempt at rebutting yours? You asked for input and then complain that it’s been given.

Restricting breeding of “purebred” lines that have all these problems is not genocide. You aren’t killing any being, nor getting rid of dogs. It’s akin to laws against incest.

The genetic manipulation under discussion isn’t going to help living beings. This doesn’t remedy any wrong. Genetic modification would potentially allow us to replace breeding and make designer breeds of our choice, but as long as this inbreeding exists, the health problems exist. I don’t see any way around that.

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not likely, though it's reasonable to assume it could run for high political office in the United States.

An orangutan has, so why not a chimp?

Chimp might perform better... experienced with typing on typewriters. lol

57 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not likely, though it's reasonable to assume it could run for high political office in the United States.

Not sure how your meaning was so misunderstood. Yes, not continuing to breed bulldogs (or the epileptic seizure prone Irish Wolfhound, etc.) does not seem genocidal. We can give our pets good lives, and then encourage the next generation to adopt smart and adaptive mongrels. For one thing, if our human civilization ever collapsed, how long could we keep supplying kibble to our canine friends? It's likely many would have to resume pack life out in the wild, and it would be best if we kept companions that had the genetic diversity and mongrel smarts to make such a transition. This dog-tastrophe has happened on smaller scales, during massive social upheavals and wars. Surely it's better if we have canid species better able to deal with the unreliability of their human companions.

Quite. Confess I'm baffled by the angry response. There seems to be a confusion between individual animals and breeds. No genetic manipulation, whether by traditional breeding methods or by tinkering with genes in the way Colossal does, can benefit an animal that is already living, obviously.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by exchemist

On 4/13/2025 at 11:34 AM, MSC said:

USA TODAY

The dire wolf went extinct 13,000 years ago. What to know...

A biotech company made history with the birth of three genetically engineered wolves: What we know about these prehistoric predators.

Like most genies once let out of the bottle, it's very hard to get them back in again. Such has become the case with gene editing and bioengineering. With this in mind, our questions may start to move more towards asking when and where is it acceptable to modify genes or bring back extinct life-forms? Instead of, whether it is acceptable at all to engage in the practices at all?

In the case of the Dire-wolf; while bringing back an extinct animal (or at least a reemergence of some of it's genetic coding in a new animal) is an impressive feat of bioengineering we ought also to ask of ourselves, how much responsibility do we have towards an animal we've created and shaped, through either direct genetic engineering and manipulation or selective breeding, in comparison with other animals whose evolution we have unintentionally shaped due to our mastery of the world landscapes?

As it stands, even endangered species of modern wolves face hurdles to reintroduction to wild spaces due to public and livestock safety concerns, other conservations efforts and the risk of accidentally destroying an environment by introducing an invasive or detrimental species.

Since people are still asking the questions like "Should wolves be reintroduced to X region?" How much more complicated will the debate become when you ask whether or not, bigger, stronger, genetically modified wolves should be newly introduced to anywhere?

The reason I brought up selective breeding earlier, is because for a lack of a better way of putting it, we have made so many mistakes and unintentional harms in this area, that we need to ask whether or not we owe our domesticated animals restorative bioengineering in order to rectify those wrongs?

Have you ever heard the sound a bulldog makes when it is struggling to breathe? So you know when it is struggling to breathe? Pretty much all the time. Due to selective breeding for shorter and shorter snouts, over time the bulldogs airways have become more and more constricted, that doesn't even begin to get into the topic of forced inbreeding and the impact that has had on many different breeds of dog.

One domestic animal that has been almost completely shut out in the cold are all the different varieties of domesticated pigeon. I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard them described as sky rats, and I can't help but wonder whether or not we would completely abandon domesticated dogs and cats if we found a satisfactory technological replacement for either the work they do or companionship they provide?

There are also less intentional ways our domesticated animals could be abandoned. Like most living beings, we are still fragile and at the mercy of both regional and planetary extinction events through natural and manmade disasters. How would these animals survive in a world without us? Some may find niches or environments to thrive in, others may not be so lucky. I certainly can't see a bulldog being a very effective hunter in the wild.

Underlying all of this are hard to answer questions about where we draw the line when it comes to genetic modification. We could use it to better our lives, reverse mistakes etc but who makes those decisions? There are also many many ways in which genetic modification could be used to wreak havoc on ourselves, provide more options for violent regimes to oppress us, etc.

I am very interested to hear what people's thoughts on all this are. I do think a feat like bringing back dire wolves is cool and fully lays out some inspiration for beneficial uses of the technology. Of that there can be little doubt.

They sequenced a few genes within the grey wolves, which to my knowledge aren't even their closest relatives instead competed with North American Pleistocene megafauna and native/endemic fauna during the Beringa land strait. I would not consider it to be a "dire wolf" until more than half the genome is inherited from an actual specimen.

On 4/14/2025 at 5:49 AM, MSC said:

Also I hate the new UI. Can't control or edit anywhere near as well

Fuck it I need a break from this forum for awhile.

Feel free to get the out of here. Did anyone ask?

On 4/14/2025 at 5:39 AM, MSC said:

I haven't forbid anything? I'm saying this has happened, whether forbidden or not these are consequences of ours dogs have to live with.

A class of individuals is still made up of living things and your definition of genocide is very narrow and is at odds with the actual definition of genocide which also includes reducing a population via culling. Not sure what is difficult to grasp about this but I'm going to cut it short here because I feel like y'all aren't reading for comprehension and are misunderstanding me at every point. Clearly nobody is ready to have these discussions when they can't even read me for comprehension. Ffs.

Also if people are going to go to all the trouble of wasting resources to half ass edit genomes, why not do it for better reasons than calling a genetically modified grey wolf, a Dire-wolf?

Also how the fuck are you guys reading me so wrong? I even said this "the case of the Dire-wolf; while bringing back an extinct animal (or at least a reemergence of some of it's genetic coding in a new animal" because I knew there would be a language criticism about even using the world dire wolf.

Quite frankly it seems like I've wasted my time with this topic since nobody is actually engaging with it properly. Ignore quote below was a mistake.

Just don't waste my time with not even reading what I'm really saying and putting shit in my mouth, not in the fucking mood.

Let me let this penetrate into your skull, culling is the reduction of a population its not outright MASS MURDER AKA GENOCIDE

GET YOUR DEFINITION RIGHT PLEASE.

If you cull a species of animal, lets say elk as it did occur historically, its reducing the population via selective slaughter. Its not blatantly going out and mass killing all elk.

On 4/14/2025 at 5:49 AM, MSC said:

Also I hate the new UI. Can't control or edit anywhere near as well

Fuck it I need a break from this forum for awhile.

Either roll with the punches and admit when you are wrong like I do, or get out of here

On 4/13/2025 at 11:34 AM, MSC said:

USA TODAY

The dire wolf went extinct 13,000 years ago. What to know...

A biotech company made history with the birth of three genetically engineered wolves: What we know about these prehistoric predators.

Since people are still asking the questions like "Should wolves be reintroduced to X region?" How much more complicated will the debate become when you ask whether or not, bigger, stronger, genetically modified wolves should be newly introduced to anywhere?

Pleistocene rewilding remains highly theoretical.

On 4/14/2025 at 5:26 AM, swansont said:

You talked about breeding and domestication, which is a different issue from extinction. Did you mention bringing back extinct species other than the dire wolf?

It would not be accurate to say it’s a dire wolf genome.

They inserted a partial Dire wolf genes into a dire wolf, the exact estimate I am guessing is around 20/19,000 genes, it is technically a dire wolf genome since some genes were inserted, if they were significant or not is up to debate.