The development of genetics and synthetic biology offers a possibility of cloning extinct species and bring them back to life again. This technology sounds like an excellent opportunity for humans to repair the diversity in the ecosystem. However, there are still a lot of debates in relation to the safety and effectiveness of this technology, particularly its ethical concerns. This paper holds the opinion that de-extinction is not an ethical choice for humans to repair their mistakes because it might bring suffering to animals and fail to copy the original species.
First, de-extinction might make extinct animals suffer again. The cloning technology has a low success rate and often causes “donors, surrogates, and offspring with health problems and abnormalities” (Sandler 358). It is probably that this technology will bring suffering to extinct animals. In order to increase the success rate and reduce negative impacts on animals’ health, there must be a lot of experiments taken. During this process, extinct animals will suffer a lot of pain in those experiments, which is brutal and unethical.
Second, de-extinction might fail to 100% copy those extinct species. It is not sure whether the technology can bring back extinct species exactly as they were. Cloning and genetic engineering cannot make an identical copy to the original extinct species. In addition to the limitation of the technology, changes in the environment can also influence the result. Shapiro argues that “even organisms cloned from frozen cells will not be identical to the extinct organism with which they share their nuclear genome” (1000). It is possible that humans create a new species based on an extinct species. In that case, humans bring new threats to the current ecosystem and break its balance instead of repairing the ecosystem to its previous balance.
Third, de-extinction cannot solve the threat to the extinction of animals and might repeat the same mistake without a sound system to protect animals and the ecosystem. Even though extinct species are brought back to life, they might go extinct again without a sound system of protection. The original cause of their extinction still exists, such as human hunting, environmental pollutions, and changes in the climate (Kasperbauer 4). It is meaningless to bring extinct species back to life without offering them a safe and suitable environment in which they can reproduce quickly. As long as the threat to animals’ extinction exists, those extinct species might soon go extinct again even though the de-extinction technology succeeds.
There are still some supporters who try to promote this technology for the benefits of humans and the ecosystem. Supporters of de-extinction believe that this technology can maintain justice by correcting humans’ mistakes, reestablish lost value, and even create new value (Sandler 355). However, the benefits of de-extinction are offered based on the benefits of humans instead of those extinct animals. Humans want to use this technology to repair their previous mistakes so that they can be less guilty. They want to bring some useful extinct species back to life because those extinct species can bring benefits to them and create new values. De-extinction is still based on humans’ selfishness.
Thus, de-extinction should not be supported due to its unethical nature, the possible suffering to extinct animals, and the failure in copying extinct species 100%. Moreover, the technology hasn’t been mature, and there are a lot of possible negative impacts or low success rates. It is not worth investing so much in a technology that still fails to solve the problem of animal extinction because those threats to animals still exist.
-Kaize
Sources:
Kasperbauer, T. J. “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction.” Ethics, Policy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14.
Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species.” Conservation Biology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2013, pp.354-360.
Shapiro, Beth. “Pathways to de-extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?” Functional Ecology, Vol. 31, 2017, pp. 996-1002.
Hi Kaize,
I quite enjoyed reading your article on de-extinction, you bring up very valid and important considerations, as well as push supporters of the technology to think about the context around the innovation and the implications it has. I found your third argument to be very compelling, you took a prospective view on de-extinction technology and the legitimacy it has long term, which is something many people lack when they both support and oppose the technology. However, while reading your article I found myself asking questions. Specifically, you state “de-extinction might fail to 100% copy those extinct species”, in which you assume innovation in de-extinction will never be able to advance to perfect copies. Assuming you are correct as fundamental limitations in how cells carry information and how we extract them limit technology’s capabilities. Your statement appears open-ended and begs the question: if humans were to reanimate an animal with 99% genetic similarity, or even 99.9999%, does such small variance merit the classification of a “new” animal, even if it functions and interacts the same as it’s predecessor? One could even go further stating: given the fact that de-extinction technology is currently being developed, bordering on a type of bio-engineering, is it not possible that we can alter the abilities of extinct animals to better coexist among wasteful human society after they are reanimated? In which case, many of your concerns, although relevant, need further argumentation. Nevertheless, your article was a good introduction with concise and relevant argumentation on the de-extinction debate; and leaves the floor open for further questions and answers.
-Elier
Hi Kaize,
You give a wonderful overview of all the arguments against de-extinction. It seems like the main reason you personally are not accepting this technology is due to its precarious nature in terms of the possibility of inaccurate results. I would like to comment on your statement that de-extinction is just to bring benefits to humans. I think this is especially true when scientists will try to bring back species that never co-existed with Homo Sapiens. I’m talking about mammoths or species from the Mesozoic era. I know the de-extinction of these species will solely be for the pleasure of humans. It will be almost revolutionary and bring incredible fame to the scientists who accomplish that. I know that will create new value for humans as it will be very cool to see a mammoth in our lives (Sandler 355). Regardless, I do think this technology can be easily abused as it can become a lucrative business. I’m talking about a possible zoo with these de-extinct species. A mini–Jurassic Park. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that, because there are like 7 movies that tell us the end result of these species.
Overall, great post!
Sources:
Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species.” Conservation Biology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2013, pp.354-360.
Hi, Kaize. Your article strongly summarizes almost all of the points, and I really enjoyed your clear and well-organized article. Your third point is also the one I highlighted in my article because I think that even if de-extinction technology reaches maturity, it will still pose a certain threat and imbalance to the environment because when extinct organisms are resurrected they still don’t have an integrated system to protect their environment. This is because when extinct organisms are resurrected they still do not have an integrated environmental system to care for them and protect them. Even though this technology has not been able to restore 100% of extinct species so far, I disagree with you. I think it still has a lot of experimental value, because we may be able to get more technological breakthroughs with the progress of technology. However, it will only stay in the lab because of its instability and unknown nature. At the same time, I don’t think we should stop it completely even though it has many limitations. I think it can make more contributions to maintaining environmental stability and protecting endangered species. Thank you for your article, it made me learn more about the side effects of de-extinction.
—Linfeng Xie