{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021218343600273786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.329004329004329, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reclaiming Hope in Extinction Storytelling.

Critics often take conservationists to task for delivering a constant barrage of bad news without offering a compelling vision of the future. Could recent advances in synthetic biology-an optimistic, forward-looking field with a can-do attitude-let conservationists develop a new vision and generate some better news? Synthetic biology and related gene-editing applications could be used to address threats to species. Genetic interventions might also be used in plants to better protect biodiversity in U.S. rangelands and forests. One possibility has stood out in its ability to capture media attention and the public imagination-recreating extinct species. And perhaps a de-extinction story could counter the seemingly relentless negativity in biodiversity talk. De-extinction proponent Stewart Brand writes that resurrecting species could shift the "conservation story … from negative to positive, from constant whining and guilt-tripping to high fives and new excitement." So, why do many people in conservation oppose the de-extinction narrative? This essay is an inquiry into whether there are intrinsic social reactions to these types of conservation solutions that might offset their potential benefits. If genetic tools are to be applied to address conservation issues in a realistic and responsible way, their broader social-cultural implications deserve far more attention than they have so far received.