# The Problem with "De-Extinction" | New [OFFICE HOURS] #007

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF_ZrCPzO2A
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/hF_ZrCPzO2A
Generated: 2025-11-12T17:44:36.653+00:00

---
## Quick Overview

The hosts conclude that de-extinction efforts, like bringing back mammoths or dinosaurs, are unlikely to be successful or ecologically sound in the near future because the necessary supporting infrastructure, such as specialized food sources or controlled environments, does not exist, and the current state of science (especially concerning complex ecosystems) is insufficient for such feats, making projects like Jurassic Park-style cloning unfeasible.

**Key Points:**
- The 7/10 rule suggests that for every seven factors increasing risk after a nuclear detonation, only one factor decreases the risk, highlighting the long-term danger of radiation fallout.
- The podcast hosts discuss the potential for de-extinction, specifically mentioning the long half-life of radioactive isotopes like Cesium-137, which contaminates areas for hundreds of years.
- The hosts question the feasibility of de-extinction, noting that bringing back an animal like a woolly mammoth would require complex infrastructure, such as tailored environments and food sources, which do not exist today.
- The concept of de-extinction is deemed likely to be more focused on recent extinctions (like passenger pigeons) than prehistoric ones (like mammoths) due to DNA degradation over vast timescales.
- The host Kyle Hill points out that much of the current AI-generated science content on platforms like YouTube is low-quality, clickbait-driven, or outright false, making it hard to find reliable information.
- The discussion touches upon the ethical issue of ecosystem balance, questioning if bringing back an extinct species would disrupt current ecological systems.
- The conversation concludes that while quantum computing shows exponential growth, the current state of science and infrastructure makes large-scale, complex de-extinction highly improbable.

![Screenshot at 00:10: The host Kyle Hill introduces the concept of the 7/10 rule in the context of nuclear detonation fallout, setting a tone of discussing serious, long-term risks.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-00-10.png)

**Context:** The hosts, Kyle Hill and Clayton Lundgren, are recording an episode of their podcast, 'The Facility,' under the 'Office Hours' segment, where they answer audience questions submitted via Patreon. The discussion revolves around a listener's question concerning the ethics and practicality of de-extinction, specifically referencing the fictional tool used by Benjamin Sisko in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine to shave, and whether de-extinction is a viable future technology.

## Detailed Analysis

The discussion begins by referencing the 7/10 rule related to nuclear events, indicating that for every seven factors increasing risk post-detonation, only one factor decreases it, setting a serious tone for long-term consequences like radiation fallout. The hosts then pivot to the listener's question about de-extinction technology, specifically referencing the shaving tool used by Benjamin Sisko in Deep Space Nine. They explain that the 7/10 rule applies to radioactive contamination, noting isotopes like Cesium-137 have half-lives measured in decades, contaminating areas for centuries. Regarding de-extinction, the hosts argue that while cloning is theoretically possible, the major hurdle is creating the necessary support infrastructure, such as an environment that can sustain the resurrected species (like a woolly mammoth) and provide appropriate food sources. They note that while cloning a mammoth might be scientifically plausible in the distant future, the immediate practicalities—like ensuring its survival and preventing ecosystem collapse—make it currently infeasible. The hosts suggest that if de-extinction were to happen soon, it would likely involve recently extinct species rather than prehistoric ones due to DNA degradation. Clayton Lundgren also criticizes the current state of science content online, noting that AI-generated content often mimics credible science but is often low-quality clickbait, making it difficult for the public to discern reliable information. The conversation eventually circles back to the mammoth question, with the hosts agreeing that the complexity of reintroducing a massive, extinct animal into a modern ecosystem makes the project highly improbable and potentially catastrophic.

### The 7/10 Rule & Radiation Fallout

- The 7/10 rule suggests that after a nuclear event, the net risk increases due to seven factors outweighing one mitigating factor; this relates to long-term radiation contamination, such as from Cesium-137, which lasts for hundreds of years.

### De-Extinction Feasibility

- Bringing back extinct species like mammoths or dinosaurs is impractical because the supporting infrastructure (e.g., proper temperature, food, habitat) does not exist; recent extinctions are more plausible candidates than prehistoric ones due to DNA degradation.

### AI and Science Content Quality

- The hosts note that AI is producing vast amounts of science-related content, but it often mimics credible science while being low-quality or misleading, making it hard for the public to find reliable information.

### Ethical Concerns of De-Extinction

- Reintroducing extinct species carries the risk of upsetting current ecosystems, especially large animals like mammoths, which require specific environmental conditions and could cause political/ecosystem chaos if not handled perfectly.

### The Sisko Shaving Tool

- A listener question referenced the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine tool used by Sisko, which glides over the face, leading to a brief tangent on advanced, but perhaps unnecessary, future technology.

![Screenshot at 00:00: The hosts, Kyle Hill \(left\) and Clayton Lundgren \(right\), opening the podcast segment in their studio setting.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-00-00.png)
![Screenshot at 00:14: Kyle Hill explains the 7/10 rule, emphasizing the long-term risks associated with nuclear events.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-00-14.png)
![Screenshot at 00:35: Clayton Lundgren explains the implication of the 7/10 rule: that 7 seconds of fallout is 10 times worse than fallout 7 seconds before, illustrating exponential risk.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-00-35.png)
![Screenshot at 01:22: Kyle Hill details the logistical challenges of de-extinction, mentioning the need to house large animals that could not live outside the exclusion zone.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-01-22.png)
![Screenshot at 02:21: On-screen graphics introduce the hosts: Kyle Hill \(@sci\_phile\) and Clayton Lundgren \(@adefgames\).](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-02-21.png)
![Screenshot at 02:49: Kyle Hill promotes the Patreon channel for exclusive content, urging viewers to support them.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-02-49.png)
![Screenshot at 03:04: A viewer question from Landen Taylor appears on screen, asking about shocking realizations from chemistry excursions and the Sisko shaving tool.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-03-04.png)
![Screenshot at 07:07: Kyle Hill thanks the viewer for the question about the Sisko shaving tool, which prompted a discussion on advanced technology.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-07-07.png)
![Screenshot at 07:54: A question from Shane Selby appears, asking whether quantum computing or biocomputers will be more useful and which will come first.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-07-54.png)
![Screenshot at 11:42: Clayton Lundgren mentions the Google chip as a massive step forward in quantum computing, noting its exponential power increase per qubit.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/hF_ZrCPzO2A/00-11-42.png)