Why Billionaire Trumpers Love This Dire Wolf Rubbish
Some of the media headlines have been breathless. Time magazine hailed 'The Return of the Dire Wolf.' On the venerable news magazine's cover, the word 'Extinct' is crossed out. 'This is Remus,' the cover declares, above the image of a large white canid. 'He's a dire wolf. The first to exist in 10,000 years. Endangered species could be changed forever.' Rolling Stone was equally credulous: '12,000 years later, Dire Wolves are back.'
No. As The Washington Post and Scientific American ably pointed out, Remus is not really a dire wolf. They aren't 'back.' Dire wolves are still extinct. A company called Colossal Biosciences, backed by Peter Thiel, among other God-cosplaying billionaires, was able to breed grey wolves with some dire wolf DNA, creating some bigger and whiter creatures. In addition to a sister, Khaleesi, there are two wolf brothers, named Romulus and Remus for the human twins who, according to mythology, were suckled by a wolf mother, in a series of unlikely events leading to the founding of Rome.
You can't make this stuff up: As the American empire teeters on the brink of collapse, the billionaires laying waste to what's left of our natural world and human civilization are not only trying to bring back dangerous, long-extinct animals but naming them after the mythological founders of an empire that went extinct itself due to its rulers' arrogance. These admittedly handsome critters could easily become symbols of our own imperial collapse.
It would be hard for these animals or any descended from them to survive in the wild; the large game that dire wolves hunted isn't as plentiful in our current world, and their old habitats are mostly gone. It's easy to imagine that without woolly mammoths or buffalo to eat, these future hybrids could turn on us, in a Parable of the Sower scenario. Not exactly what we need right now!
But even more disturbing than the overexcitable media coverage or the dystopian possibilities are the conclusions that the current administration has drawn from this quixotic little adventure. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a billionaire, like many others in the Trump administration, says the appearance of these wolves shows that endangered species need 'innovation, not regulation,' an echo of the trendy 'abundance' discourse currently beloved by centrist Democrats. Burgum told employees in an Interior Department meeting Wednesday, 'If we're going to be in anguish about losing a species, now we have an opportunity to bring them back. Pick your favorite species, and call Colossal.' (Colossal also has plans to bring back the woolly mammoth, an even stupider idea but one that Elon Musk is excited about.)
Burgum's position is dangerously deranged. Nature itself is 'innovating' all the time, but the most important way that humans can save endangered species is by regulating our own activities to protect them and their habitats. The latter is the only known way that species like the Florida panthers have returned from near-extinction, and keeps many other species from getting there. As The Washington Post implied in an article Thursday, the administration is using this weird science experiment to justify its own plans to decimate endangered species protections that have been in place since the Nixon administration.
Even before Trump and his band of anti-environmental bandits announced these plans, scientists had flagged more than a million species for risk of extinction in the coming decades. The changes that Burgum is currently making will imperil spotted owls, sea turtles, and many more.
Why, in this context, do our oligarchs eschew protections for the animals we already love—like whales and manatees—preferring to bring back some rejiggered hapless version of the ancient dire wolf, which no current ecosystem needs? Precisely for the reason Burgum admits: They don't want regulation. They claim that's because regulation has 'failed,' but that's nonsense: The Endangered Species Act has saved the vast majority of listed species from extinction, including the gray whale, the peregrine falcon, the grizzly bear, and the bald eagle, our national bird. Oligarchs prefer Colossal's entirely untested and wildly inefficient approach because its supposed 'innovation' puts them at the center, and because, even better, shredding regulation allows them to continue trashing the world unhindered, destroying anything that stands in the way of their profits.
Speaking of current species that need the regulatory system that Bergum is trying so hard to eviscerate, we still have real live wolves. It's particularly rich that these so-called dire wolves are essentially gray wolves with a little bit of gene editing, because the gray wolf, a magnificent animal that cannot be improved by oligarchic interference, is particularly besieged by human policies. That wolf has been protected by the Endangered Species Act since 1974, when it was hunted nearly to extinction. Since then, the species has rebounded in many Western states, but Trump removed protections for gray wolves in 2020, and Idaho and Montana are deliberately seeking to reduce their numbers, killing them recklessly. Republican billionaires and far-right politicians may applaud the engineering of this strange lab-grown model, but the world they're creating is utterly inhospitable to the real wolf.
The only way this 'dire wolf' project could be helpful to the cause of animal conservation is if Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi grow up with a special appetite for oligarchs. That, I must admit, would be an outcome worthy of significant research investment. But it's likely not what Peter Thiel has in mind.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program.


New York Post
21 hours ago
- New York Post
Menopause drug might prevent breast cancer and treat hot flashes, research finds
A drug intended to treat menopause symptoms could double as breast cancer prevention. New research from Northwestern University in Illinois found that Duavee, a Pfizer-made drug, 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, which is a major indicator of cancer progression. Advertisement A phase 2 clinical trial included 141 post-menopausal women who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), also known as stage 0 breast cancer, according to a press release from Northwestern. This non-invasive breast cancer affects more than 60,000 American women each year, often leading to an outcome of invasive breast cancer. The women were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Duavee is a conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CE/BZA) drug, which combines estrogen with another medication that minimizes the potential harmful side effects of the hormone. Advertisement 'The key takeaway from the study is that CE/BZA slows the growth (proliferation) of cells in milk ducts of DCIS that expressed the estrogen receptor significantly more than placebo,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni, lead investigator and professor of breast surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told Fox News Digital. 5 New research from Northwestern University found that the drug Duavee 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, a major indicator of cancer progression. Marko Geber – Another major finding is that the quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups, but patients who took the CE/BZA reported fewer hot flashes during the study, she noted. 'This would be expected, as the drug is FDA-approved to treat hot flashes.' Advertisement Kulkarni presented the study last week at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago. 5 The women in the study were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Gorodenkoff – 5 Those who took the drug reported fewer hot flashes during the study. fizkes – The findings are preliminary and have not yet been published in a medical journal. Advertisement 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' said the doctor, who is also a Northwestern Medicine breast surgeon. Women who face a higher risk of breast cancer — including those who have experienced 'high-risk lesions' — and who also have menopausal symptoms are most likely to benefit from the drug, according to Kulkarni. 'These women are typically advised against standard hormone therapies, leaving them with few menopausal treatment options,' the release stated. Study limitations The researchers said they are 'encouraged' by these early results, but more research is required before the medication can be considered for approval as a breast cancer prevention mechanism. 'Our findings suggest that CE/BZA may prevent breast cancer, but larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed before we would know this for sure,' Kulkarni told Fox News Digital. Dr. Sheheryar Kabraji, chief of breast medicine at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, was not involved in the study but commented on the findings. 5 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni said. sarayutsridee – Advertisement 'While intriguing, this study is highly preliminary, and more research will be needed before we can conclude that conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CD/BZA), a form of the hormone estrogen commonly prescribed to address symptoms of menopause, prevents invasive breast cancer or is effective at reducing cancer risk,' he told Fox News Digital. Kabraji also noted that the study focused on reducing levels of one specific protein, 'which does not always predict reduced recurrence of breast cancer.' 'This study did not directly show that CE/BZA treatment reduces the risk of DCIS recurrence or development of invasive cancer,' he noted. 5 According to Kulkarni,'larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed' to confirm that the drug prevents breast cancer. Science RF – Advertisement 'Importantly, however, patients who received this therapy experienced no worsening of quality of life, and saw improvement in vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes. If found to be effective in preventing breast cancer, CE/BZA is likely to have fewer side effects than current medications used for breast cancer prevention.' Lead researcher Kulkarni emphasized that this medication is not for the treatment of invasive breast cancer or DCIS. 'Right now, we can say that women who are concerned about their risk of developing breast cancer can consider this medication to treat their menopausal symptoms,' she added.