 |
|
|
|||||
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a de-extinction company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a PhD in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term endangered species. The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. Of dire wolves and de-extinction What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. All thats left of dire wolves today are bones, like these skulls on display in a museum. [Photo: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images] While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesnt match in the two species represents more than 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological, or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the functional de-extinction game. The company acknowledges it isnt making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomythe science of naming and categorizing living organismsare as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of species, and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. Deciding what counts as an endangered species In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid species and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossals functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people. In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossals definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just pick your favorite species and call up Colossal? Putting biotechnology to work for onservation Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for todays endangered species. I suggest gene editings real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, youd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a lost population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossals source for its cloned ghost red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these ghost wolves into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic purity versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problemespecially habitat destruction. The ability to make functional copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. Alex Erwin is an assistant professor of law at Florida International University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
How many times have you used the words good or bad today? From checking your weather app to monitoring the progress youve made on your to-do list, to scrolling through social media, opportunities to make snap evaluations abound. And the more you sort things into these categories, the more instinctive making these judgments becomes. You may find yourself filtering everything that comes your way in terms of good or bad. A dark cloud triggers bad, a social media post of baby animals triggers good, a news story about a political scuffle triggers bad. Whether you think something is good or bad, or worthy of a like or not, is an important piece of information. But if that categorization is the only thing thats on your mind, the only lens through which you interpret the world, youll miss out on a lot. Im a philosopher who specializes in happiness, well-being and the good life. I study how ones state of mind influences ones experiences of the world. In my recent book, The Art of the Interesting, I explore the ways the evaluative perspective squashes your ability to experience psychological richness and other positive dimensions of life. The more you instinctively react with a good or a bad, the less of the world you take in. Youll be less likely to engage your mind, exercise curiosity and have interesting experiences. Evaluation narrows your mind When you instinctively label something as good or bad, you focus only on the features that make that thing good or bad. You look outside, and all you see is the darkness of the clouds, threatening your plans for the day. You dont notice the cooling shade those clouds create, nor the dramatic ways the wind makes them morph. You dont notice the flowers unfurling, nor the child walking by who is also looking up at the clouds, but with a wide-eyed look of wonder. When snap evaluations reign, you effectively shut yourself off from a wide range of possible experiences. When everything around you is just good or bad, nothing can be perplexing, mysterious, or intriguing. Nothing can be simply new, or simply challenging, or simply stimulating. Nothing is interesting, for your mind has filtered out these possible sources of cognitive engagement. It sees what it expects, and nothing else. Open your mind for more psychological richness Snap evaluations narrow your perspective and limit your minds potential to connect and engage with other aspects of your experiences. But you can unlock this potential simply by resisting any instinct to judge and instead viewing the world without trying to evaluate what you see. Right away, youll start to notice more, and youll activate your minds internal drives for curiosity and exploration. Freed from the dead-end judgments of good/bad, you can explore what is novel, allow yourself to be challenged, and tackle the complexities inherent to human experiences. Traffic jams can become sources of intrigue, rather than just a bad way to start your day. Delicious meals wont just taste goodtheyll spark your curiosity and stimulate your creativity. Youll go from seeing a coworker as difficult and irritating to recognizing them as an individual with human imperfections whos deserving of your compassion. Youll also feel the pains, struggles, and rewards that arise through these mental engagements. Youll experience rich, intense moments and a greater range of emotions. Youll find your life chock-full of unusual and unique experiences with very few instances of boredom and monotony. Over time, your mind will become more adept at finding connections, exercising creativity, and operating from a place of cognitive complexity. Youll start to view the world more holistically, as full of connections waiting to be discovered. All of these are signs that your life has become more psychologically rich. Expand your mind, expand your sense of self Psychological richness and, more generally, experiences of novelty and interestingness are valuable on their own. But theres evidence that theyre also important due to their effects on your sense of self. When you engage in new, interesting activities, you not only broaden your horizons and develop fresh perspectives, but you also become more confident in your ability to do whatever comes next. In these ways, you expand your very sense of self. The connection between psychological richness and self-expansion is intuitive. Novel, interesting activities stimulate the mind, challenging it to engage and explore. This process can expand your confidence in your abilities and provide you with a greater sense of control over your environment. As ones sense of self expands, ones very presence within the world shifts. One recent study explored the influence of psychological richness on pro-environmental behavior. While its common to feel sad, anxious, angry, powerless, and helpless in the face of climate change, developing psychological richness can transform these negative attitudes. Researchers found that people who experience psychological richness were more willing to engage in sustainable activities. They believe this correlation is mediated by self-expansion, which helps subjects feel more confident that their actions would have an impact on the daunting problem of climate change. Cut out good and bad, go for interesting instead Everyone has the capacity to develop a sense of presence and agency in the world that enhances the very experience of life. A habit of snap evaluations inhibits this capacity, but you can train your mind to be more apt to engage and explore. The easiest way to do this? Stop saying, or thinking, good and bad. When you find yourself inclined to do so, force yourself to say something else. Start right now and begin your journey to engage with the world in a more rewarding way. Lorraine Besser is a professor of philosophy at Middlebury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
At Apples annual WWDC keynote, the highest-level subject is always the future of its software platforms. And the big news in that department usually stares us right in the face. In 2023, for example, it was the debut of Apple Vision Pro, the companys entry into the headset market and its first all-new experience since the Apple Watch. Last year brought Apple Intelligence, its branded take on what AI should look like as a core element of computing experiences. And then there was Monday mornings WWDC 2025 keynote, as streamed online to millions and screened to a select audience of in-person attendees at Apple Park. After Apples embarrassing inability to ship the AI-infused update to Siri it showed off at WWDC 2024, it was hardly surprising that this years event didnt bet everything on whipping up a further AI frenzy. That alone set it apart from last months Google I/O keynote, whose topics consisted of AI, AI, and more AI, with some AI drizzled on top. [Photo: Apple] Apple did introduce some new AI during the keynotequite a bit of it. Overall, though, the event felt like an act of counterprogramming. Instead of positioning itself as a leader in AIor at least quashing fears that its a laggardthe company seemed happy being itself. From the unified new design to old features (phone calls!) turning up in new places (the Mac!), it focused on giving consumers even more reasons to own and use as many of its products as possible. Herewith a few of the impressions I took away from my morning at Apple Park: Liquid Glass is classic Apple, in the Steve Jobs sense. In 2012, one of Tim Cooks first dramatic moves after succeeding Jobs as CEO was to oust software chief Scott Forstall. That led to a reorganization that put Jony Ive in charge of design for software as well as hardware. Ives influence was seen in the iPhones iOS 7 upgrade the company shipped the following year. It ditched the lush skeuomorphism of the iPhones software up until that time for a far flatter look, bringing to mind the understated, Dieter Rams-like feel of an Ive MacBook, manifested in pixels rather than aluminum. Ive left in 2019, but the principles he instilled have informed Apple software ever since. [Photo: Apple] But now theres Liquid Glass, a new aesthetic Apple is rolling out across its portfolio of platforms. Its glossy, dimensional, pseudorealistic, and animateda dramatic departure from iOS 7-era restraint, but reminiscent of both earlier iOS releases and also older Apple software all the way back to the first version of the Macs OS X in 2000. That was the one with buttons that Jobs said people would want to licka memorable design imperative that is suddenly relevant again. As my colleague Mark Wilson writes, Liquid Glass isnt about adding new functionality to Apple devices. It might not even be about making them easier to usein fact, when an interface introduces transparency effects and other visual flourishes, legibility is at risk. It does, however, look cool in a way thats classically Apple, and which the Apple of recent years had deemphasized. The iPad has left limbo . . . for Macland. For years, Apple seemed to have reached a mental standstill with the iPad. The company clearly wanted its tablet to be something distinct from a Mac, but it also appeared to be short on ideas that were different than the Mac, especially when it came to building out iPadOS as a productivity platform. End result: The platform has foundered rather than matured. [Photo: Apple] With iPadOS 26, the iPad will finally see a lot of meaningful change all at once, and most of it is distinctly Maclike. Its getting a menu bar. Windows that float and overlap. A more full-featured Files app and, for the first time, a Preview app. Even the quirky circular cursor gives way to a more conventional pointy one. As an unabashed iPad diehard, I admit to my fair share of trepidation about all this. The iPads abandonment of interface cruft in favor of considered minimalism is a huge reason why Ive been using one as my primary computer since 2011: I dont like to wrangle windows or scour menus for the features I need, hidden among those I dont. Maybe Apple has figured out how to retain whats great about the iPad even as it gives in to the temptation to borrow from the Mac. But Im alarmed by the apparent disappearance of the iPads foundational multitasking features in the first iPadOS 26 beta, and hope theyll return before the software ships this fall. VisionOS is still evolving, and thats good. Its been two years since Apple unveiled the Vision Pro and 17 months since it shipped. Rumors aside, we still arent any closer to clarity on how the $3,500 headset might lead to a product that caters to a larger audience than, well, people who will pay $3,500 for a headset. Even Tim Cook says it isnt a mass-market product. Still, Apples enthusiasm for spatial computing doesnt seem to be flagging. As previewed during the WWDC keynote, VisionOS 26 looks downright meaty, with more realistic-looking avatars for use in video calls, features for watching movies and playing games with Vision Pro-wearing friends, widgets you can stick on a wall or place on a mantel in the real world, AI-powered 3D effects for 2D photos, partnerships with companies such as GoPro and Sony, and more. None of these additions will prompt radically more people to spring for a Vision Pro in its current form. But assuming that the headset doesnt turn out to be a dead end, Apples current investment could help a future, more affordable version offer compelling experiences from day one. Its still unclear whether ChatGPT is a feature or a stopgap. Apples own AI assistant, Siri, was acknowledged only at the start of the keynote, when Craig Federighi, senior VP of software engineering, mentioned last years announcements and the decision to delay the newly AI-savvy version until it meets Apples high-quality bar. Another AI helper did pop up several times during the presentation, though: ChatGPT. For example, it powers a new Visual Intelligence feature that will let users ask questions about the stuff on-screen in any app. The keynotes example: Upon seeing an image of a mandolin in a social post, you can ask, Which rock songs is this instrument featured in? Given that the new Siri features Apple revealed a year ago remain unfinished, adding a dash of ChatGPT here and there is an expedient way to maintain some AI momentum. But does the company see integrating the worlds highest-profile LLM-based assistant as an attractive user benefit in itselfor just a placeholder until it can offer similar technology thats entirely under its own control? Im still not sure. At WWDC 2024, Federighi also talked about incorporating other AI models, such as Googles Gemini, but no news has emerged on that front since. Even during a pivotal, unpredictable time for the tech industry, one of the WWDC keynotes purposes remains straightforward. Apple needs to get consumers excited for the software it will ship in the fall, which isnt necessarily synonymous with blowing them away through sheer force of AI breakthroughs. In a Bluesky conversation, one commenter suggested to me that people arent actually clamoring for AI at alla take that has a whiff of truth to it even if it isnt the whole story. Ultimately, users want pleasant products that help them get stuff done, whether in a personal context, a work environment, or somewhere in between. After last years WWDC, assuming Apple will ship everything it brags aboutat least in a timely fashionis dangerous. But its easier to envision the confident vibe of this years keynote paying off, because so much of it involved the company playing in its comfort zone.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||