14 July 2025

In our inaugural HiveMind collective chat, we explore our roundtable reactions to some news that makes us think of blood splattered blockbusters and Jurassic-sized egos… 

Say what?! First up, a little background: 

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 first hungry humans arriving in Aotearoa, this legendary flightless bird shaped our ecosystems and landscapes for millennia, with the equally-extinct Haast Eagle it’s only predator.  

Colossal plans to hatch the first iteration 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”. 

So, should we part of their comeback story?  

The opinion mill has been grinding away overtime on this for the past week (here’s one we appreciated from the experts and another with a healthy dose of scepticism). We love a good debate, so at our regular team get-together we weighed in with our own ‘expertly diverse’ opinions on this moa-surrection!

⟩⟩ MIKE (our 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. 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’d be amazing!  But I'm quite distrustful of the ‘science’ and our misplaced confidence in the knowledge that we have.  

⟩⟩ BELINDA (our 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 (our kaiurunga 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!). Just 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.

⟩⟩ TE RATUHI (our kaiurunga):  leave well alone!  

Our environment - our taiao - has changed dramatically since their time. 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! We’ve 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. I work with bird species reintroductions and I know that a species can sometimes be extinct in the wild and then we work to reintroduce them. So 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 (our office manager): some practical scepticism!  

My first thoughts were, “What’s the motivation behind this?” and “Why are they even doing it?”  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 bird dinosaur - so big and wreck the forest?” Where does it 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 that big that could eat me! 

⟩⟩ GREG (our founder & planner): just ego-driven conservation 

I’m not surprised this ridiculous idea comes from a company called 'Colossal' - perfectly aligned with the colossal egos and colossal dicks behind this project. 

I'd rather see Peter Jackson return his film subsidies, pay his taxes, and fund actual conservation efforts instead of talking about resurrecting the moa. 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? That moa could make our forests less boring! Our bush is a bit lame and tame at times as there's nothing there to kill you.  Imagine marauding moa hunting in packs while you're out tramping - now THAT would make outdoor adventures more interesting.  This resurrection 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 (our planner): commodifying extinction? 

Going second to last, you guys have stolen my thunder! But Greg, you’ve inspired me, so 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 (our conservation scientist): where’s the 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 of our ecosystems. I really dislike these types of media conversations. They’re designed to make us 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.  

This fantasy allows us to pretend we can technologically ‘magic’ our way out of any 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 means we avoid confronting the real, hard work of environmental protection and systemic change. 

And the final word goes to…

Tania, with her comment - “I’ve seen enough movies – this sort of thing never ends well!”