Also, a note about weaponized CRISPR.
Some relevant excerpts:
There are at least three semi-successful techniques for de-extinction so far. 1) Selective back-breeding of existing descendents to recreate a primordial ancestor is being used for the revival of the European aurochs, among others. 2) Cloning with cells from cryopreserved tissue of a recently extinct animal can generate viable eggs. If the eggs are implanted in a closely related surrogate mother, some pregnancies produce living offspring of the extinct species. 3) Allele replacement for precisely hybridizing a living species into an extinct species is the new genome-editing technique developed by George Church. If the technique proves successful (such as with the passenger pigeon), it might be applied to the many other extinct species that have left their ancient DNA in museum specimens and fossils up to 500,000 years old.
As someone concerned with actual genetic fidelity, and not just “form and function” I am not enthusiastic about approach 1, which does not actually reproduce the original creature but merely a functional analog of it. Approach 2 is certainly sound from my perspective; approach 3 in theory could be equally sound if the “precisely hybridizing” means a full and complete allele to allele replacement so that the original creature is actualized with full genetic fidelity. But note the following:
Even with exponential advances in bio-technology, de-extinction projects will not produce species that are 100% genetically identical to the extinct species, due to the constraints of working with incomplete ancient DNA. It is expected that the revived species will be nearly identical genetically, and “functionally identical” ecologically.
I’m not thrilled with that, obviously. In some cases, if that is the best that can be done, fine, but if it is possible to produce a ~100% identical reproduction, then that should be pursued, and not just a “quick-and-dirty” “functionally identical” analog. Now, I’ve read that, for example, the Woolly Mammoth genome has been fully sequenced, with multiple reads, so I don’t see why in that case an attempt for ~100% fidelity can’t be attempted. I say ~100% rather than 100% because there’s always a possibility of some error or artifact, but at some point, if we approach 100% to a degree within methodological error, then we can assume the goal is achieved.
But, that’s ancient samples. If we want to “de-extinct” or re-populate (to increase numbers and/or genetic diversity) of extant, endangered species, then we have the full genomes available and these data must be carefully compiled and curated. There’s no excuse for not being able to reproduce with 100% genetic fidelity currently existing organisms.
Now, we get to the meat of the issue: human ethnoracial preservationism. European ethnic stocks are endangered, all eventually if current trends continue, but some faster than others. These are extant, currently existing subspecies, and there is no excuse to not being able to reproduce these in the future – we can get the genetic data, accurately, today. The genetics of extant European ethnies need to be compiled and curated, in the event it should be necessary and possible to “de-extinct” or re-populate particular types. Am I talking about genetic engineering humans? Yes, I am, and I am not interested in hysterical fainting fits over “ethics” or “morals.” Euro-genocide is not ethical or moral, yet it is occurring, so leveraging science in the service of ethnic and racial preservation is highly ethical and moral. And we need full genome sequencing of many, many, many representatives of different ethnic groups, to cover a range of sub-types, and to recreate a reasonable amount of genetic diversity for each curated ethny.
Getting back to ancient samples – could we reproduce ancient human stocks, it necessary? People talk about Neanderthals, and that’s all well and good, but if we have autosomal genetic data with full, or close to full, coverage, can we reproduce, say, Ancient Egyptians? Spartans? Vikings? Romans? Can we recreate Medieval or Renaissance man? Or certain prominent individuals? Assuming the DNA is available?
Getting back to modern humans – can we also curate certain Euro ethnic hybrids? Yes, we should. And the data could be used to devise Euro hybrids of our own choosing, or, conversely, could be used to “clean up” ethnic genomes of low-level admixture (if such is desired). Again, let us have no qualms about genetic engineering of humans for ethnoracial preservation and/or to expand the scope of European ethnic stocks. We should view this ONLY as a methodological problem, not a “moral” or “ethical” one. Whose morals and ethics do we appeal to, anyway?
De-extinction is not a “quick fix” science. Most species revival projects will take many decades. First, extensive research about a candidate species is conducted before moving into a lab setting for genomic work to revive the species. Then, once the initial revival is completed, the species will be bred in captivity, preferably with genetic variability introduced from the genomes of a range of specimens or fossils. The growing population will be studied and then eventually moved to quarantine areas for further observation and analysis. Getting the okay from regulatory agencies will be required before the animals are ultimately re-introduced to the wild.
Passenger pigeons, for example, will initially be bred in captivity by zoos, then placed into netted woods, and then finally re-introduced to portions of their original habitat—America’s eastern deciduous forest. Before that happens, The US Fish and Wildlife Service and regulatory agencies in the relevant states will have to agree to welcome the resurgent birds.
he same basic principles can apply to humans as well.
On a related note, consider the following. Of one remembers all the talk of years past about ethnic-targeted weapons, the possibility of weaponized CRISPR should be grounds for careful reflection.
As the degenerate West collapses into a multiracial morass, rest assured the more homogeneous Orient will pursue technologies for warfare that the decadent Occident would have SJW fainting fits over. One can envision a CRISPR-type system targeting European-specific gene sequences, delivered by a transmissible virus. And, there is, insofar as we know, no stockpiles of anti-CRISPR therapeutics (e.g., CRISPR inhibitors in an efficiently deliverable form). We may be headed towards a genetics weapons arms race, one that is actively pursued by cunning Yellows and inanely eschewed by milksop Whites.