Elon Musk's Neuralink Co-Founder Says He Could Build the Real 'Jurassic Park,' With Genetically Engineered Dinosaurs (thehill.com) 71
The co-founder of Elon Musk's company Neuralink tweeted on Saturday that the startup has the technological advances and savvy to create its own "Jurassic Park." The Hill reports: "We could probably build Jurassic Park if we wanted to," Max Hodak tweeted Saturday. "Wouldn't be genetically authentic dinosaurs but [shrugging emoji]. maybe 15 years of breeding + engineering to get super exotic novel species." Hodak didn't further explain what technology Neuralink could use to engineer the long-extinct dinosaurs. It's worth noting that the tweet makes no mention of Neuralink, although one could presume Hodak is referring to the neurotechnology company because of his use of the word "we."
In response to the statement, which has been picked up by a variety of publications Wednesday, CNET's Jackson Ryan says we shouldn't expect a "real Jurassic Park" anytime soon -- or ever: [I]t's pretty much impossible to resurrect a dinosaur. The science of bringing dinosaurs back from the dead isn't really as sound as Hodak makes it seem though. Even humanity would have a tough time building a Jurassic Park in the next 15 years. First, we'd need some DNA from the prehistoric tyrants and unlike in the film Jurassic Park, where the DNA is retrieved from mosquitoes in amber and fused with frog DNA, that information has completely degraded.
However, more recently extinct animals, like the woolly mammoth, may be a good target for "de-extinction." We can still extract DNA from these creatures and could theoretically build and implant a mammoth embryo in a modern-day elephant. The question is: should we? Jurassic Park offers a pretty good reason not to, but mammoths aren't quite as bloodthirsty as Tyrannosaurus rex.
In response to the statement, which has been picked up by a variety of publications Wednesday, CNET's Jackson Ryan says we shouldn't expect a "real Jurassic Park" anytime soon -- or ever: [I]t's pretty much impossible to resurrect a dinosaur. The science of bringing dinosaurs back from the dead isn't really as sound as Hodak makes it seem though. Even humanity would have a tough time building a Jurassic Park in the next 15 years. First, we'd need some DNA from the prehistoric tyrants and unlike in the film Jurassic Park, where the DNA is retrieved from mosquitoes in amber and fused with frog DNA, that information has completely degraded.
However, more recently extinct animals, like the woolly mammoth, may be a good target for "de-extinction." We can still extract DNA from these creatures and could theoretically build and implant a mammoth embryo in a modern-day elephant. The question is: should we? Jurassic Park offers a pretty good reason not to, but mammoths aren't quite as bloodthirsty as Tyrannosaurus rex.
Then fucking do it (Score:1)
seriously, do it. just get on it and do it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just not possible. Thinking Machines went bust in 1994 so there would be no way to switch the electric fences on and off or lock any of the doors, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer Westworld. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, who wants to shag a dinosaur? (expect perhaps a gold digging, pole dancing, playmate)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure there are people who would.
Re: (Score:1)
It bothers me they way these people (Score:2)
There was a story about the company that "makes" Red Bull. They don't actually. They hire out a juice company to make it. They're literally just a marketing company that figured out they could get Americans to drink the kind of crap Japanese Salarymen have lived off of for years with the right advertisements.
The point of the article is we're seeing a shift away from companies that focus on a good product and to companies that focus on marketing first and product seco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It bothers me they way these people (Score:2)
Yeah. One could almost say we have a problem of fluff and wild-ass daydreaming being passed off as news. It might even be fair to call it an act of fraud and fakery to pass this stuff off as news.
But don't worry. It only ever happens with stuff that's not really important to our everyday lives. Just celebrity gossip. Never about serious stuff like what kind of dog the president likes or what kind of shoes the vp is wearing.
Re: (Score:2)
But, in fairness, if the core of the "product" is all based on a marketing/pump scheme to begin with, at least you know where you stand:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Re:It bothers me they way these people (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How does it make journalists look?
It's one thing to hear out the fanciful tales of a self-important moron. It's another thing to repeat it to the world with a straight face.
"Even humanity" (Score:2)
"Even humanity"
What does that mean ?
Does he think Max Hodak or some other potential Jurassic Park-builder isn't human ?
( I'd ask the editors, but: Slashdot )
Re: (Score:3)
It's a clunky way of phrasing it, but I suspect Ryan meant "even the pooled resources of all humanity" would have trouble building a "Jurassic Park" in 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody hadn't told him it's not DNA (Score:4, Funny)
It's CGI
Re: Somebody hadn't told him it's not DNA (Score:2)
But but the light and shadows on the velociraptor's face spell out genetic code!
CGI DNA FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they do this (Score:3)
and arm all of the "Dinosaurs" with at least one “Not A Flamethrower”
Re: (Score:3)
There's a *reason* people don't provide supporting information. From Muck Rack about him:
I'd guess it's Social Studies.
Jurassic Park offers a pretty good reason not to (Score:2)
Jackson Ryan, that statement was stupid.
Someone shoot that man (Score:1)
Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't science fiction, just silly childish fun. Invoking it was stupid vs. having some intelligent commentary on the subject but apparently /person saying anything with "dinosaurs" is now newsworthy.
Ooooh! DINOS! Movies! That's clickbait for retards.
I really want to understand the deliberate suckification of Slashdot. The "quality" of so many threads is bad enough to be considered sabotage and far from usefully techy.
Re: (Score:3)
The ability to manipulate DNA in arbitrary ways and grow whatever you want in an egg will definitely happen eventually.
Heck, we already have Kinder Joy. That's progress right there.
Re: Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:2)
We have the technology today. We don't have sufficient dino DNA sequenced, but woolly mammoths are already being legitimately debateted.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of less demanding species. How about the Great Awk? Humans wiped that one out, but recently enough that there are plenty of museum specimens that should provide decent genetic samples. It was a good bird, would be nice to have them back.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the technology today. We don't have sufficient dino DNA sequenced, but woolly mammoths are already being legitimately debateted.
And since humans most likely drove mammoths to extinction it would only be a fair remedy that we undid one of the first ecological disasters that early humans caused: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: Jurassic Park was silly as intended. (Score:2)
Well our climate change would probably drive them to extinction again.
Not sure what "fairness" has to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even in the summary he says it wouldn't be with real dinosaurs...just really big and strange creatures. We could probably do that given time...though I don't think a decade would be long enough, and it might well take more cash (in a crash project) than Musk could supply. I'd like to see a shovel-tusker, but the environment that it used to live in no longer exists, so it probably couldn't survive.
Unlikely to survive (Score:2)
Even if they could, our current oxygen levels, temperatures and humidity would be completely different from when these larger animals lived. Totally possible that even if there was some success the animal would simply die of hypoxia
Re:Unlikely to survive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And once we have enough moa, we can do haast's eagle! Babies are annoying screaming little things and lack for a natural predator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CNET's Jackson Ryan says "First, we'd need some DNA from the prehistoric tyrants"
The headline did refer to "genetically engineered dinosaurs" so why would you need old smelly DNA? You can emulate the dinosaurs or let your imagination run wild and create a Mr. Potatohead or something from your favorite cartoon show or nightmare. What's not to like?.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they could, our current oxygen levels, temperatures and humidity would be completely different from when these larger animals lived. Totally possible that even if there was some success the animal would simply die of hypoxia
Well, the relative humidity currently ranges from 0 to around 100% at different places. That has not changed. And we also globally have a very large temperature span so it should definitely be possible to find a warm enough habitable zone for extinct species. Regarding oxygen that has been in the same range (corresponding to height differences of maybe 2000 meters) for the last 200 million years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Maybe an island near Costa Rica could provide habitable living conditions for
If they're going to try de-extinction, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa [wikipedia.org]
I might pay for it (Score:1)
Would we get to see the 300 pound corrupt IT guy get eaten? Got plenty of DNA around here for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of ways to do that without a dinosaur in sight. Chuck the fat fuck into the business end of a garbage truck.
Lame (Score:5, Funny)
Dinosaurs are boring. Build a fucking Mecha that is controlled via neuralink or go home.
He would seem to have a focus problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool (Score:3)
Can't think of anything that could go wrong, just stay away from gotos [xkcd.com] ...
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone smell... (Score:1)
A real high end brain link would redfine humnity (Score:1)
First dinosaur on Mars! (Score:2)
What could go wrong? (Score:2)
Mmm Dino Burgers! (Score:1)
Oh, just stop it (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Musk and Friends are desperate to be visible in the media 24/7, but this really takes the cake.
Never say never (Score:1)
"Dinosaurs" (Score:2)
Wouldn't be genetically authentic dinosaurs but [shrugging emoji]. maybe 15 years of breeding + engineering to get super exotic novel species
Here's your velociraptors [staticflickr.com]. You're welcome.
The question is: should we? (Score:1)
The question is: why not?
If it was possible we should do it. Even if the resulting animals were dangerous, there are already plenty of dangerous animals in the world today that would eat or kill you without any issue, yet no one would have a problem resurrecting them if they went extinct.
Dinos are animals humans never saw in their whole existence, the reason we didn't is because they went extinct before we had a chance to meet them but nature and evolution are not some kind of wise super intelligence whose
you misunderstand.. (Score:2)
"Wouldn't be genetically authentic dinosaurs but [shrugging emoji]."
So he already says exactly that we couldn't resurrect a real dinosaur, but we can create a new hybrid that looks like a dinosaur from those times (at least what we THINK they looked like, as it's still conjecture and not actual proof).
Well I could (Score:2)
Leap tall buildings in a single bound
Lift a car over my head
Fart bullets
Talk is cheap numbnuts, yours more than most. Put up or shut the fuck up.
Yes, because we should always use sci-fi movies to determine whether something should be done or not.
"Open the bay door HAL"
Maybe we shou
All he needs is (Score:1)
They will be able to in the future (Score:2)
I mean... (Score:2)
What could *possibly* go wrong...?
Yeah, I completely believe him (Score:1)
It will be ecaxtly like the movies. Them getting out and breeding in the wild and killing boatloads of people and everything.
But hey, GMOs "NEVER" get out. At least that's what the Dunning-Kruger morons believe who think letting morons (aka humans, before 2120) do GM on living organisms is a good idea. So all will be fine.
I would be happier adding back genetic diversity (Score:2)
to existing critters.
I say we round up a few hundred bison pelts from the Buffalo Bill Cody days and bring back a bunch of random American Bison and introduce them back into a reserve. In addition we could "mix it up" a bit making more non-related individuals using DNA from living and other non-living sources. Keep them separated at first, maybe introduce some existing bison into their herds instead of the other way around and monitor them for a few generations. If they pan out as "genuine" then turn the
Ho hum. (Score:2)
Wake me when he's got the dinosaurs.