Holmes Rolston in “What do we mean by the intrinsic value and integrity of plants and animals” describes, as implied, the inherent value of plants and animals within their ecosystems. Rolston explains that plants have intrinsic value no less than animals. He understands that people only focus on the value and condition of animals when they are subject to modification for human desire. However, plants are often overlooked. Plants, although functioning through different processes are of equal importance to the life-death cycle that exists in nature. To paraphrase, it isn’t the lion’s sharp teeth that will allow him to survive a drought, it will be the Bermuda grass that feeds the zebra which the lion preys upon that will ensure it’s survival (pg 4). Rolston provides strong and persuasive argumentation for acknowledging the value that plants have, consequentially begging the question, is genetic modification of plants and animals justifiable? Or to be precise does the genetic modification of plants and animals through human intervention compromise the innate integrity, autonomy, and value that plants and animals have naturally?

His conclusion is that it depends on the context. An example he uses is the American chestnut, it has been destroyed in North America due to a fungus that it is not immune to. However, the Chinese chestnut has a gene that grants it immunity to such fungus. As such it appears justifiable to be able to modify the American chestnut to become immune to the fungus and once again populate North America. To justify this he states “that an organism has been genetically modified does not ipso facto mean that its integrity has been compromised. The modified plant or animal might be a better-adapted fit than it was before. Species in the wild reach local adaptive peaks, but not necessarily optimal ones, and some transgenic modification might relocate a species on a higher adaptive peak.”(pg 5). As is the case with the American chestnut. This is furthered by the fact that genetic mixing occurs abundantly in nature, allowing for the relocation of species to new genetic peaks naturally.  However, it’s important to determine the limit of our reach, to do this we must ask ourselves “how far has the quality of life of the organism been reduced?” (pg 6). I believe a good example to consider would be dogs. Domesticated dogs are as abundant in number as they are in breed. Through generations of genetic manipulation and shuffling at the will of humans dogs have developed genetic traits that allow them to hunt bears, or herd sheep, things a feral dog probably wouldn’t be able to do naturally. But keeping Rolston in mind, would a domesticated dog have a lower value, or compromised integrity than a feral one? It’s apparent that domesticated dogs can be trained to fulfill a large number of roles, policing, assisting the bling, acting as therapy. However, it can be surmised that a domesticated dog in the wild, without human aid, would probably end up dead. This isn’t to say that all dogs would be incapable of sustaining themselves, but it’s understandable that many would be helpless. The largest cause of their helplessness being the lack of proper genetic material that allows dogs to best adapt to their environment. Be it, small snouts, muscle or bone atrophy, or decreased size humans have caused the adaptability of dogs to decrease. Intentionally or not, dogs no longer possess the genetic material that would allow them to adapt and live in an environment without human aid. This brings us back to Rolston who states, “tinkering in nature is in search of better adaptive fit, tinkering in genetic engineering is in search of more profits” (pg 7). Thus through the experimentation of cross-breeding, humans have created a species that in large cannot live without us. Although the quality of life of a dog can be argued to be better with safe housing, water, food, exercise. The fact remains that the natural ability of dogs has been manipulated such that they are bred for sale to make a profit, and must depend on people to survive. It’s clear that their natural autonomy and integrity have been disregarded through their continual forced breeding. As such I believe that when deciding to genetically shuffle or alter a species, plant or animal, we shouldn’t disregard their previous inherent autonomy and value. Rather than focus on the gains of domestication and genetic modification, we should also look at the cons to make the most informed decision that will not strip the value that living beings have.