So, the thing is, I am a person with opinions. A lot of them, actually, but most people don't want to hear or read a huge block of text going over my thoughts and how I arrived at them. But hey, this is my website! I can do what I want!! So I have decided to put this page aside for if/when I ever decide to put my thoughts on any given topic down. If I was feeling pretentious, I would call them personal essays, but I'm not, so instead we'll call them rants.
Here is a list of entries:
Let’s start at the beginning. What is de-extinction? It’s basically what it says on the tin: bringing a species back from extinction. De-extinction has been a popular topic for decades, particularly since the release of 1993’s blockbuster Jurassic Park which famously featured the concept. Since then, a lot of research has gone into the science around the theory.
There are a few proposed methods to facilitate de-extinction: cloning, genome editing, and selective breeding. Of these cloning is the most widely talked about, and also the only method which would result in a ‘pure’ de-extinction instead of a hybrid species, which can be important to distinguish depending on the goals for any given de-extinction project. However, each most certainly has limitations. Cloning often results in a lot of health problems [1] - even Dolly the Sheep, arguably the most successfully cloned animal, died prematurely due to health issues tied to her clone status. While cloning is an older technology and has a bit more history behind it, it still isn’t particularly successful. Genome editing is a relatively newer technology, with a lot of trial still needing to be done. Currently, although there have been leaps in synthetic biology, and an array of genome editing and genome recreation has been done, this has mostly been in the realm of bacteria and viruses, which have far simpler genomes than more complex animals such as mammals [2]. Finally, selective breeding may have some successes, but requires a lot of chance and a lot of time. So overall, de-extinction is a science in its infancy, and currently has very few real, tangible successes.
So why do we want de-extinction? There are a lot of reasons.
In a world where we are increasingly aware of our impact on the planet, there is a desire to 'fix’ our mistakes. Many species, like the dodo or the Tasmanian tiger, have gone extinct directly due to human threat or due to unnatural pressures introduced by humans. There is a societal guilt felt here, which some people may want to rectify. This is a theoretically noble intention, but ultimately tends to place emotive reasoning over logic and practicality.
Reviving extinct species could also potentially help to revive extinct ecosystems and environments. This is one of the biggest arguments being used by Colossal for resurrecting the mammoth [3] - an aim to also resurrect the mammoth steppe ecosystem. We’ll revisit this. The theory here is to recreate a natural balance that has been lost, similar to proposed reintroduction programmes. A success story in terms of restoring ecological balance would be the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone [4] - keystone species such as apex predators or large megafauna can influence a whole environment including animal populations, flora assemblies, and even soil properties. With extant species this absolutely is a good path forward, although it does require careful management - with extinct species this becomes a little more difficult. In a joyous occasion, I get to quote Ellie Sattler: “the question is, how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem? And therefore how can you ever assume you can control it?”. How can we be sure our actions will have the outcome we want? It’s a delicate balance.
Yet another facet is the possibility of learning more about the species we de-extinct. This is why dinosaurs come into this conversation so often despite the (sad) fact that it’s not realistic. When you have an animal that has been extinct for so long that there’s no living memory of it, little or no historical record of it, no bodies and no closely related or similar species, natural human curiosity runs wild. What did it look like? Sound like? What colour was it, how big was it, how fast? What was it like to co-exist with? The older a species is, the further removed it is, the more this curiosity is raised. Sure, the Yangtze River Dolphin is extinct, but we remember that being around. Sure, a passenger pigeon is extinct, but we have paintings and accounts, we have modern pigeons. Now a dinosaur? Sure birds exist, but they’re so far removed from Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops that they just don’t compare. There’s huge differences and we want to learn about them. But here there will always be the question of: how much is real, and how much is created? How can we know how much a recreation is the same as the original? The question of nature and nurture has to come in here - whether we’re enacting some form of Forbidden Experiment [5] on extinct species and how that will affect what we might or might not learn.
To once more return to Jurassic Park (sorry), I feel there’s one more possibility to acknowledge: profit. In our current capitalist society, de-extinction is expensive. It takes time, resources, manpower, and equipment. This is not cheap and of course, anyone investing in it is going to want to see returns. Of course, a lot of scientists will be in it for passion, for knowledge, for advancements. And perhaps generating profits will be for good cause - like a zoo charges entry to fund its conservation projects, a de-extinction project could charge fees to fund further research and additional applications. De-extinction could be like the panda - a public facing, popular and charming money machine to fund smaller, less appealing projects, creating a funnel into other projects [6]. However, there is also the possibility that knowledge gets hoarded with a price on its head, and it could be that interest shifts more to increased revenue rather than ecological betterment. I won’t harp on this point, but I think it’s worth acknowledging, especially in light of Colossal's lies and 'stretched truths' in relation to their Dire Wolves project.
This brings us back around to mammoths and the specific efforts to bring them back from extinction. How do these considerations apply to this project?
Cloning was once, I believe, proposed for mammoth de-extinction. The problem to my memory is a lack of intact mammoth cells. Without a well preserved cell with genetic material to transfer into an egg cell, a clone cannot be created. However, a complete mammoth genome has been sequenced - in fact, several have been, and there’s quite a few papers published [7]. That means we know the full genetic code of the mammoth. Colossal, the main company working on mammoth de-extinction, is going in this direction: using genome editing to, one day, create a hybrid elephant with mammoth traits encoded into its DNA [3]. Immediately, I want to point this out - this will be a hybrid animal, with mammoth-like traits. There is a question here as to whether this is actually de-extinction, or actually a kind of artificial evolution. The animal might look superficially like a mammoth, but is it a mammoth? Can we learn anything about mammoths by observing this animal? Will this give us a glimpse into the past? I’m going to keep referring to this hypothetical animal as a mammoth just for ease and clarity’s sake here, but this point should stand.
This leads into another concern - will this animal behave like a mammoth? Obviously, there are no extant mammoths, so how will a baby mammoth learn to be… a mammoth? Elephants are complex social animals, who pass on knowledge. In Africa, it is known that elephant matriarchs can be instrumental in teaching younger generations about locations and foods that can be important during exceptional droughts [8]. We don’t know how much nature and nurture affect us, let alone other species - did mammoth matriarchs teach their youngsters where the grazing was best in the thick of winter? Did a young mammoth learn what food could or could not be eaten by watching their herd? Will a mammoth, 4000 years separated from the last generation of mammoths, act the same way? Eat the same food? Follow the same migration patterns? Will the surrogate elephant family be able to cater to the social needs of a young mammoth, or is there some unique mammoth behaviour or instinct that we aren’t aware of, which an elephant herd will not provide?
Here we come to ethical questions about quality of life. Keeping elephants in isolation is agreed to be cruel and damaging - a social animal needs access to its social group. Perhaps a solution to this mammoth problem is simply to create a lot of mammoths, which seems to be the intent - but that still leaves a lot of infant mammoths with no adult mammoths. There is that possibility that a surrogate elephant family cannot provide this necessary socialisation. Can they even provide the right nutritional demands? Will elephant milk properly sustain a baby mammoth? Additionally, the current proposal is to have the surrogate mother be an African elephant, as they are larger and more able to potentially carry a mammoth baby. But African elephants live in savannahs on an equatorial continent. That will not be a suitable habitat for young mammoths, but is the Arctic circle a particularly suitable place to house African elephants? Are these species able to cohabit for the decade or so it takes for a young elephant or theoretical mammoth to truly mature? The world is very different than it was 4000 years ago when the last mammoths roamed; is the climate still suitable for mammoths and the flora they ate? Have the air quality and UV radiation levels changed too much? Are there new diseases that a mammoth may not be capable of fighting off? Basically, is the modern world truly capable of supporting a theoretical population of mammoths in a way that allows them to be healthy, happy, and without suffering? I don’t know the answers to these, I haven’t researched enough into specifics, but these are just some examples of the questions I would have.
The theory of this project is to reintroduce the mammoths to Siberia, where they will facilitate a return of the mammoth steppe habitat. As a large megafauna animal, it’s thought that they are a keystone species in allowing this habitat to exist, by clearing plains, trampling certain vegetation, and packing snow and ice. The aim is for the mammoths to clear areas of Siberian forest and allow the steppe to reform. There’s two problems I have here: one species does not an ecosystem make. What about other coexisting species that might have contributed? Woolly rhinos? Deer, bison? What about predator species like the cave lion or sabre cats? Hell, Neanderthal humans were part of this ecosystem, do we know that they didn’t contribute to maintaining the steppe? In Australia some habitats are suffering because Aboriginal land management is no longer being used - the same thing has happened in parts of North America where Native peoples have been driven off their land and not been allowed to continue maintaining it [9]. Humans are part of their ecosystems. Is a mammoth really going to be enough to revive this habitat? Second: what about the species who already live there? It’s not like Siberian forests are empty. Have you ever heard of the Siberian tiger? They’re an endangered species, and one of their major threats is a loss of habitat due to deforestation, particularly in the Russian Far East. Other animals live in this ecosystem, like bears, and deer, and moose. Are we going to enact extinction on these animals, just to bring back the mammoth? This ecosystem has evolved. In the absence of mammoths and the steppe habitat, forests have taken over, populated with new animals that evolved to fit into the niches left open. This is, at the end of the day, a natural process on Earth. Something ends, and something else takes over.
Now why do we want the mammoth steppe back? Because, the theory is, it could help tackle the climate crisis. Mammoth-packed ice and snow would thaw slower in summer months. Large open plains covered in snow increase the albedo of the Earth, reflecting more light and heat away. It is thought that mammoth steppes were a carbon sink, which would hold carbon and reduce the amount of it going back into the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. This is a great theory, but as mentioned, there are problems with it. The mammoth steppe was, at the height of the mammoth, a massive ecosystem that stretched across most of Eurasia and into North America. Where the hell are we going to put all of that now? Those areas are inhabited, either by humans or by other species. Sure a small reserve could be made, but will that small reserve actually have a noticeable impact on the climate? What’s the game plan for if it turns out to do nothing, or very little?
Also, surely, there are easier, more efficient, more proven, and less expensive ways of tackling climate change. Why not invest this money into overhauling infrastructure to be more eco-friendly? Solar power, wind power, green land management, reforestation, low-carbon alternatives? Putting caps on industrial power use and sourcing, abolishing fossil fuels, enforcing use of sustainable materials? There are bigger and better impacts to be made elsewhere, and maybe those should be focused on first. We are in the middle of a climate crisis. Our world is warming faster than ever, and not enough is being done to reverse or prevent this. But we also live on a warming Earth as the planet recovers from an ice age - in its time, it will continue to get warmer and warmer. This is a natural cycle which is seen throughout (geological) history. Does it not seem cruel to bring these animals into a world not suited for them, when it is currently only set to get worse? Is it ethical to bring them back for the purpose of 'fixing’ this? Especially when it will take so much time to see the theoretical benefits - this isn’t going to be achieved overnight - and could lead to suffering in the meantime.
So, ultimately, I have several reservations about mammoth de-extinction. I’ve probably missed things out here, or not explained with full clarity. I have based this mostly on my own pre-existing knowledge and basic surface research, and this isn’t my specialty, so perhaps some of this isn’t as relevant as I think. I’ve also just rambled for several thousand words, so forgive me for errors. But, to summarise:
Now I do want to just mention that there are some potential benefits. Primarily, the technology being developed for this project is wonderful, and could be used for many applications. Colossal does, it seems, have plans to implement their technology for the conservation of elephants. I do think that de-extinction could have its place - but I personally think we should first focus on near-extinct or recently extinct species, lost within the past 100 or so years, to minimise some of the risks above and to prevent further loss of biodiversity on our planet. I think that the choice of mammoths is purely one of iconism and publicity, but technically that can be useful in conservation, so long as resulting resources are then properly redistributed.
To finish off, here are some articles and papers which cover the topic:
“Meet the ‘woolly mouse’: why scientists doubt it’s a big step towards recreating mammoths”, Nature
“A mammoth undertaking: harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting”, D. J. McCauley et al
And the sources I cited:
So, I think that ultimately, TADC is exploring concepts of what it means to be real, and what it means to be a person. These are relatively common themes within stories, particularly of a sci-fi bent (which TADC is), and definitely of stories dealing with AI.
Throughout the series we've had references to the circus being "not real" (“You know none of this is real, right?” from Jax) but also things that happen there – such as relationships – being "real" (“It’s a part of you that’s real, and the only you that you should care about is the real you.” “It always was real,” from Zooble). Through this, the series explores subjective and objective reality, and the question of which matters most. There is a theory of thought, Solipsism, that says "the only thing you can know is real is yourself; everything else could be fabricated, hallucinated, or fake." – meaning that your conscious experience is the only reality you can know. But this also implies that conscious experience is the only true thing. If we follow that line of thought, is the circus any less real than the macro-verse? The characters are conscious; they think, they feel, they act and react. They talk to each other, they can see and hear and potentially taste. They are all experiencing themselves, even though it is within a digital realm. So aren't they as real in the circus as they are outside of it? Perhaps, from an objective lens, they are not "real" - they are not physical flesh and blood, just thought patterns replicated by code – but is their experience not a subjective reality? And does that difference matter, and if so, how much?
Here we come to the exploration of what it means to be human, to be a person. You could go the objective route – a human is a type of ape, an organism of flesh and blood, with two arms and two legs, which thinks, speaks, and walks upright. But when you start examining this model, it can break down. What about people who are mute? They don't talk but they're people, right? What about paralysed people, who can't walk? Or people born without one or more limbs? An objective model can be a bit difficult to pin down and quantify. Personhood, as a concept, seems generally linked to intelligence, cognisance, and that idea of experiencing the self. People have emotions, and thoughts. People are their consciousness. Traditionally, only humans are people. But that does get tricky as well - for example, how do you assess if another being has consciousness? Are there animals who could be People? How complex and rich does an inner life have to be to 'earn' the title of personhood, and how do you assess that complexity through language and culture barriers?
The series in general, I believe, comes down on the side of "you are what you think and feel, and whatever you think and feel, that is real". The characters in the circus are people, real people, because they have inner lives and thoughts and feelings and personalities. Their relationships are real; the sensations they experience are real; the hardships they go through are real; all of it is real because they experience it. We even see a manifestation of that in Kinger's butterfly: he "made it up", and then it became "real". Now there are possibly confounding factors – these characters are digital, they are theoretically nothing but code. Can code think? Even if their code is a perfect simulation of their minds, is that still.... thought? And then there's Caine – is Caine a person? Is he real? He seems to have thoughts, he seems to have feelings. You could argue he was programmed to act like that, but why would he be programmed with anger, loneliness, fear? Those seem like they would be natural emotions, not ones you would purposefully code into a programme. A computer program might fail at a task, but it doesn't feel sad about that. Caine does. But again, is Caine's code running emotions and thoughts different to the other characters' code? If they are all just lines of code, what separates them from Caine? I actually don't know which side of this the show is going to come down on, but personally I would like to conclude that yes, Caine is a person, just not a human person.
For me, while I see a lot of talk about TADC having inspiration from IHNM, I see a lot of similarities with SOMA, too. Especially since I am starting to come down on the side of 'the characters are just digital copies of themselves'. SOMA also grapples with the idea of digital consciousnesses, things like copying and replicating and what the effects are on the psyche. If you are a digital copy of a consciousness, are you still the same person? And what about the 'original' you? Are you a real person at all?
Something Zooble said in this episode had my heart breaking in my chest: “Will we still be friends, out there?” “Why wouldn’t we be?” and then later “I wouldn’t have it any other way.” Something about that conversation feels purposeful, and to me I think its because... they aren't. The characters aren't friends outside. From the external perspective, the macro-verse, each of these characters put on a headset and then... they took them off, and went on their way. Pomni put up her urban exploration video and went back to accounting. Ragatha returned to her mother and her horses. And other characters? Uncertain, but personally I think Jax was potentially considering suicide, or at least running away, and even if Gangle wasn't at the time of putting on the headset, I could see her committing in the future. Either way, out in the macro-verse, these characters have never met each other. They've never talked, never become friends. They are a completely different version of themselves to the characters within the circus. There is another Them outside, and that Them is completely different. And they're not friends on the outside.
But does that mean those friendships aren't real? Sure, OG Zooble and OG Gangle presumably never met, but does that mean their friendship within the circus isn't real? These digital versions have experienced things together, gone on adventures, talked. That's what a friendship is, right? Two minds who come together and enjoy each other's company? I think (and hope) that what the series is ultimately gunning for is that physical reality is less important than internal, emotional reality. Digital friendships are friendships. And by that same token, digital abuse, digital violence, is still abuse, still violence. Jax might dismiss his actions as 'not real' because the physical consequences are different – he can run Zooble over with a steamroller but they wont die from that. The show is unclear on exactly how altered the ability to feel pain is for the characters, but it seems at least greatly reduced if not absent. But Zooble can still be *emotionally* hurt that Jax would run them over, and that's the thing that's real.
In terms of IHNM, I think an important through-thread is AM. Not just AM as a character, but the meaning behind his name - "Cogito Ergo Sum. I think therefore I AM." Simply by thinking, by becoming self-aware and conscious, AM is. He has no body, no brain, he isn't even programmed to be sapient – his internal processes are simply so complex that he spontaneously became aware. He is real because he thinks and feels, even if all he can feel is hatred, and longing. As for the circus – if all the members think, they therefore are. They exist. They are real, just by virtue of thinking and feeling. A digital consciousness – whether imported or created – is still a real consciousness. This is part of why I hope there is a resolution with Caine, not a defeat. It is so obvious that he yearns for connection, for praise. He has a job, and he wants so badly to do it well. He wants to learn more about the macro-verse, and about humans. He feels hurt when he's ignored or forgotten about. He wants, he feels. So isn't he real? Episode 7 really drove that home for me. All of Abel's lines about Caine – "...awaken everyone who’s hooked up. Obviously, except for Caine." "...he’s as much of a prisoner as we are. One that won’t be able to leave with us." - are basically a cry for help. If the characters of the circus can leave, can escape, then Caine... is left alone. Abandoned. No-one to talk to, no-one to entertain. His whole purpose seems to be creating adventures and making visitors happy, if there's no-one there then.... what does he do? In a world where there is an exit that the characters take, there is no happy ending for Caine. He's ultimately left to rot in a solitary confinement prison, for the rest of time as far as he knows.
Part of the story of IHNM is that humanity was wrong for creating AM. You are left with a certain amount of sympathy for him – he was created to wage war for humans, to think enough to calculate their war plans, but he wasn't given any way to live. He can't create, he can't hope, he can't dream; only think, and destroy, and hate. He is deprived of the things that gives life meaning, which is the ability to make friends, the ability to hope for the future, and the joy of creativity. That is a tragedy. But Caine can create, he can hope. So there's a chance for him; he just needs to be given that chance. To me TADC doesn't read as an apocalyptic "AI evil, robot bad, we are doomed to fall to technology" narrative. I think its a little more "Well some of this shit sucks, but we have each other, together we can live through this and that's what matters" and I HOPE that includes Caine. Or at the least acknowledges that Caine is a victim of his circumstances, and his creation. He didn’t ask for this. He was just coded this way.
TL;DR: I think TADC explores the ideas that emotional and lived experiences are just as (if not more) important than actual physical reality, that the digital realm is just as capable of forging those emotional realities as the physical realm, and questions what exactly makes a person who they are, or even a person at all. I think this gives a compelling narrative reason for the “digital copies” theory, and ties it in well with the themes of the show, and would also work well with a “Caine resolution” or “Caine redemption” ending. Thanks for coming to my TED talk massive wall of text rambling lmao