Preservation of genetic information is not at all speculative in the way that preservation of human mental contents is. The two additional technologies are, from what I can tell, much closer to our current capabilities than the technology needed to retrieve the information in a vitrified brain.
(Hopefully, that's what you were talking about.)
ETA: This history of the relationship between cryonics and cryobiology is relevant and a great read.
What does this remind you of?
Jurassic Park.
In what ways is it different, such that it can be published in a high status journal?
Did they swear not to let Spielberg make any sequels or prequels to the paper, and not do that for Jurassic Park? Because I can totally see that as having been the sticking point.
Both reading the post and having an encounter with a raptor make one think about cooling things.
I wouldn't call it a "chase" though, more of "an informal joint koan meditation during which there is mutual respect and the eating of one participant by another is considered particularly bad manners and is expressly forbidden.
I find this subject sad, in a way.
Technically I think there's a very good case for doing something simple. Freeze practically any tissue sample, and someone at a later time can extract tiny fragments and extract the DNA using the well-known polymerisation techniques. With multiple cells and tries, you can exactly sequence the entire genome. We probably have the technology already to do this, and end up uploading these species to the Internet. And at some later time we'll be able to rebuild the sequence, put it into some suitable cells, and fire off a pregnancy.
That's not the sad part. The sad part is that the pleistocene is gone forever, and that's where all these animals belong. That kind of Earth is passing away, and is never ever coming back. The arrival of technology is going to affect the Earth as profoundly as the advent of multicellular life. What's happening now is merely the very very beginning of this change.
You can preserve the rhino if you like, but its habitat has already gone, and the finality of that will become clearer with every passing year.
I agree with you on the sad part. I do enjoy biology, and I am sad to see so many species becoming extinct. I don't think that the project mentioned in the post is as hopeless as you make it out to be, however. In the future, we won't particularly be interested in plants and animals to develop drugs; that role will be taken over by rational drug design. The reason why we would want to preserve plants and animals is the same reason modern-day environmentalists take the positions they do: Earth's biological life is pretty frickin cool. So if we do want to revive these preserved species, it's not strictly necessary to actually put rhinos back in Africa. As a starting point, we could simply build a few high-quality zoos. Given some substantial advances in technology, simulate them. Allow people to go on a VR safari. Given a lot of technological advances, terraform a planet and use it as a nature preserve. It won't be possible to revive extinct species anytime soon, but I don't think it's a hopeless project at all to prepare for a day when it might be possible.
It won't be possible to revive extinct species anytime soon, but I don't think it's a hopeless project at all to prepare for a day when it might be possible.
Perhaps see: Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
It says: "An extinct animal has been brought back to life for the first time after being cloned from frozen tissue."
That is true of the current intermediate technology level. If we manage to develop sufficiently advanced technology that we no longer need to use the Earth to support ourselves, it could change.
Given environmentalists proposing to turn the whole Earth into a nature reserve, the answer I would like to be able to give is, "Sure, have fun. I'm off to the asteroid belt to find some dead matter to turn into computational substrate. Send me some postcards."
What does this remind you of? In what ways is it different, such that it can be published in a high status journal? Are those differences informative in any way?
It does not touch on religious or personal issues of personal identity and theory of mind and is aimed at 'victims' (endangered species); as well, it stays very close to existing applications and technology.
I'd guess close to existing applications & technology. If you flip either of the others, I don't see much of a backlash. Consider instead preserving stem cell from common species like dogs. Not much of a reaction there. Consider the suggestion that entire endanger species samples be frozen per cryonics; wouldn't people regard it as a waste of space? But again, not much of a reaction.
Interesting recent article from Ben-Nun et al. (doi:10.1038/nmeth.1706) in the high-impact journal Nature Methods.
As I understand it, they express reprogramming factors in the adult cells (e.g., fibroblasts) of two endangered species (here and here) to convert them into induced pluripotent stem cells.
They then cryopreserve these pluripotent stem cells, in the hopes that they can eventually be used to increase the number and genetic diversity of these two species.
However, this will require two additional technologies which, crucially, are still in development:
1) the generation of germ cells from pluripotent stem cells, and
2) the development of assisted reproductive technologies for related monkeys and rhinos.
In the meantime, these pluripotent stem cells will simply remain in cryopreservation.
What does this remind you of? In what ways is it different, such that it can be published in a high status journal? Are those differences informative in any way?