BILLIONAIRES, BIG BIRDS & BULLSH*T
Our candid, off-the-cuff, TCG team-take on de-extinction…
In our inaugural HiveMind collective chat, the Catalysts record their roundtable reactions to an announcement that makes us think of blood-splatted theme-park films and Jurassic-sized egos…
The Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, US-based genetic engineering firm, Colossal Biosciences, and Canterbury Museum just announced that they have teamed up with the dollars of mega movie-maker, Sir Peter Jackson, to turn back the clock and de-extinctify the South Island giant moa (all 3.6m of it!).
Prior to the arrival of the first hungry humans to Aotearoa, this legendary flightless bird shaped our ecosystems and landscapes for millennia, with the equally extinct Haast Eagle as it’s only predator.
Colossal’s aim is to have the first hatchlings emerge within five to eight years to “restore ecological balance and cultural heritage”, and these genetically engineered ecological replacements will be released into “expansive, secure ecological reserves”.
Say what? First for some background…
So, should we welcome back the moa and be a part of their comeback story?
Questions like this have got Kiwi imaginations all fired up and the opinion mill has been grinding away on overtime this past week (here’s one we appreciated from the experts and another with a healthy dose of scepticism). Not to be left out, at our regular team get-together we weighed in with our own ‘expertly diverse’ opinions on the moa-surrection:
MIKE (the planner) | fears for the process but loves the idea:
“My reading on it suggests this tech is all about playing with the genome of existing animals and trying to edit them to be more like those that once lived in the past. I’ve been sceptical about genetic modification since my teenage years and get nervous about any sort of gene tech.
We humans have this habit of thinking we know everything, but nature is so complex. Messing about with genomes and creating new life forms feels like we're playing a dangerous game. And, as we’ve seen, this has the potential to create all sorts of unexpected things (cue Jurassic Park theme music).
Aside from my tech concerns, I'd love to see them back – it would be amazing! But I'm quite distrustful of the ‘science’ and our misplaced confidence in the knowledge that we have.”
BELINDA (the policy maker) | more curious than concerned:
“I'm in two minds on this. I'm concerned about gene tech, but I'm also quite fascinated by it. Peter Jackson can throw his millions at this as his pet project, but I don't want to see government money diverted away from protecting existing species. Resurrection? It just feels a bit gimmicky.
But… the ecologist in me wants to know whether our theories about the moa’s impact on te taiao are correct. Could we verify our theories about lancewoods and their adaption to moa browsing? Imagine being able to test in the wild whether this tree's growth patterns were really a defence against these massive birds? That would be fascinating!”
PIA (kaupapa taiao) | balancing scientific curiosity and cultural respect:
“The science nerd in me is totally intrigued. I’d be keen to have a look at how they do this resurrection thing, and all the tutu’ing that goes on behind the scenes to make it happen. But my values system tells me there's a process moa have gone through (dying out) and that should not be tinkered with. If I wanted to see more, I'd rather put on a VR headset (thanks PJ – you could sort that for us!). Let me walk through a virtual world that reflects their original environment, without the need to resurrect them.
Messing with genes – it just doesn’t feel right to me. Some things are meant to remain in memory and history.”
TE RATUHI (kaupapa taiao) | leave well alone:
“Our environment - our taiao - has changed dramatically. We're working hard to try and preserve what's good in our current ecosystems, and suddenly we're talking about bringing back an extinct species into the mix? Like Pia, I'd rather just chuck on the VR headset and ‘waihoki ki reira’. There's a reason for why things happen and sometimes we just don't need to go and have a tutu in there.
But…. my ‘tutu mind’ also thinks, “Ooh, cool…!” Part of me wants to explore this but not enough to want to have it actually happen.”
LIZ (the ecological modeller) | a chance for ecological redemption:
“This idea is so interesting to me! We humans have caused the extinction of a lot of these species, and now, we have some tools to potentially bring them back and undo some of the damage we've done. Remarkable!
How do I feel about it? I agree with Belinda that the masses of money involved could be better channelled into existing species that really need that support. From my work with bird species reintroductions, I know a species can often be extinct in the wild and we work to re-wild them from captivity. To me, de-extinction is just a step further on from this - bringing a species back from extinction and then putting it back where it belongs.
We do need to think about whether the habitat can still support it, given the changes wrought since it went extinct; and what are we bringing it back to – can it live naturally or is it doomed to fail again?”
TANIA (the office manager) | some practical scepticism:
“My first thoughts were, “What’s the motivation behind this?” and “Why are they even doing it?” Because like Mike, I worry about the thought of genetically engineering species. My brain immediately goes to the worst-case scenarios, “What do I know about moa? Are they aggressive? Will they decide humans look like a tasty snack? Will it be like a dinosaur, just so big and wreck the forest?” Where does it all this stop? Today the moa, and tomorrow T. rexes? Like a really bad Jurassic Park?
So many questions! But I think the money could be way better spent on other things the world needs right now. Maybe Peter Jackson just wants material for his next blockbuster? Who knows. I just don't like the thought of anything big like that that could eat me!”
GREG (the founder and planner) | it's ego-driven conservation:
“I’m not surprised this ridiculous idea comes from a company called 'Colossal' - which perfectly matches the colossal egos and colossal dicks behind this project.
I'd like to see Peter Jackson, rather than talking about bringing back a lost species like the moa, to give back his film subsidies, pay the taxes, and support actual, existing conservation efforts. These billionaires are creating a massive distraction, pushing a sci-fi dream based on tech that doesn't even work yet, all to avoid dealing with our real, immediate environmental challenges.
The only remotely interesting bit of this whole circus? Moa could make our forests less boring! They’re a little lame and tame – as there's nothing there to kill you. Imagine moa hunting in packs while you're out tramping - now THAT would make outdoor adventures more interesting.
This idea is right up there with colonising Mars. We've got perfectly good ecosystems right here that need protecting, but no, let's go play mad scientist instead of doing the real, hard-graft conservation work.”
ALASTAIR (the planner) | commodifying extinction?
“Going second to last, you’ve all stolen my thunder! But Greg, you inspired me, I’m going dark on this one. I reckon Fed Farmers will want to get in on this. They’ll be thinking we could commodify moa into a food product that’ll feed the world.
Imagine it…Kentucky Fried Moa! We could patent and farm these genetically modified birds and create a new hunting tourism market - maybe even splice in some T-Rex DNA to make the guided hunting experience a tad more 'exciting'.
If you're going to go down this vanity pathway and waste money better spent on conservation outcomes, then I say let’s get in there - boots and all! If we're going to do something stupid like this, let's do it with entrepreneurial spirit and add in some excitement.”
FLEUR (the conservation scientist) | a distraction from real environmental accountability:
“Greg - how dare you call our ngahere “lame and tame” for want of packs of tramper-eating moa! It may be tame compared to other nations, but it is far from lame. Putting that to one side, I don't have a lot of polite words left to say on this topic!
This is an entirely ego-driven, bombastic, showy, unnecessary project that makes a few individuals feel like kings and the rest of us despair for the state our ecosystems that are plunging off the cliff edge. I also dislike these types of media conversations. They capture your imagination and make you think “how cool is this tech?” and “Gosh golly, aren't we humans amazing?”. There’s no critical reflection on the fact, as Liz said, that it was us, and our endless drive for growth, that pushed the species off the edge in the first place.
It allows us to pretend we can technologically ‘magic’ our way out of this ecological mess we humans have created. It's classic misdirection: “Don't you hippies over there worry about overconsumption and exploitation, it doesn’t matter. We can just resurrect anything we lose along the way!”
It's just a shiny distraction that lets us avoid confronting the real, hard work of environmental protection and systemic change.”
…goes to Tania, with her comment - “I’ve seen enough movies – this sort of thing never ends well!”
And the final word?
In conclusion: we’re not fans of the idea!
There you have it - our collective, off-the-cuff take on the moa-surrection. From curiosity to comedy, from cultural wisdom to pure tech scepticism, we've covered more ground than a pack of giant prehistoric birds being hunted by an apex predator!
Want to avoid turning your conservation and environmental protection efforts into a B-grade sci-fi movie? Be-moa-ning the appalling state of biodiversity loss. Lacking moa-tivation to tackle the ecosystem challenges that lie ahead?
Let us help. The Catalyst Group specialises in real-world environmental solutions - no genetic engineering, no billionaire vanity projects, just serious commitment to crafting real solutions that protect what matters now.
Get in touch, and let’s chat about making a difference - moa-free guaranteed 😉!