Stanley A. Temple in TEDX expresses his dissatisfaction with extinction. His experience in conservation works with three strategies for preventing extinction those are, protection, conservation and restoring. But Temple talks about a fourth strategy that is now being incorporated, revive. But there are concerns with reviving from extinction, he says that this is a new ball game where extinction has never not been permanent before and we must consider the effects of reviving and the implications. The questions he is analyzing is should we revive?
It seems many would quickly react to supporting this idea of de-extinction. Bringing back a species that was previously extinct. But how does that impact the ecosystems and other species around them? And further, how do we decide which species get to be revived, and who gets to choose? There is more complicated implications to de-extinction in considering what is morally correct. Reviving species could potentially advance far enough that we would be reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or millenia. Should we engage in this deep de-extinction of long dead species or are the risks too complicated?
Sandler speaks to a justice approach for why we should be involved in de-extinction, he ends up disagreeing with the argument. The justice approach states that if humans were the cause of extinction for example overhunting as a cause, then we should revive the species. The main issue Sandler takes to this is that it is not the proper way to correct the wrongs, as on an individual level we could not restore the same animal and the species as a whole doesn’t have the capacity to be wronged. I agree with Sandler here to some extent, in recognizing the wrongs humans have caused it is a matter of making sure we changed our actions for the future. We are already working towards de-extinction but continue to display the same behaviour patterns on other animals. Many species have been over hunted or over fished by humans and it is more important to attack that problem instead of revitalizing species.
Within an ecosystem species play many different roles and whether we deem them necessary they are important and valuable intrinsically. Sandler concludes that for this reason anthropogenic extinction is wrong and we should use de-extinction to restore the value that was lost. I have to challenge this thought, as mentioned before we would not be restoring the individual but would be reviving the closest genetic makeup so I still conclude we would not be restoring the damage that has been done.
I think Sandler makes a very important argument, deep de-extinction as luxury conservation. This again addresses as mentioned before avoiding addressing human actions and instead coming up with fixes to ensure our actions have a lesser impact. Humans have a tendency to view themselves above other species, also known as speciesism. If we have the ability to revive any species after extinction, I do believe that humans would be less inclined to change their actions and the harms they are creating. De-extinction would soon be seen as a quick fix instead of dealing with the implication and real consequences of human actions.
“It is fine to pursue if people want, so long as it does not interfere with or compromise ethically important things.” Sandler concludes in his argument that as long as de-extinction practices do not interfere with other things such as human welfare, and existing species then it is ok to engage. I do not agree with him as for as long as de-extinction is a practice that is seen as a “luxury” the right intentions are not being practices. What is ethically important needs to be re-assessed.
Alison
Sandler, Ronald. Dec 20, 2013. The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. Society for Conservation Biology. https://conbio-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12198
Stanley A. Temple. De-extinction: a game changer for conservation biology. https://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/de-extinction-a-game-changer-for-conservation-biology/
Hi Alison,
I really enjoyed your blog post! Your thoughts on Sandler’s ethical concerns of deep de-extinction are intriguing. I’d like to comment particularly on the question you asked early on of how we ought to determine what species we should revive. Sandler (as well as myself) claim that we have a moral obligation to attempt to “fix” ecosystems and species that have been negatively impacted by human activities. However, one may claim that this is not good enough. In other words, if we are able to bring back species in the first place, should we not bring back all species (or at least, scientifically relevant ones)? Is it morally responsible for us to create a real life Jurassic Park?
Understandably, one may argue for the revival of certain species for the purpose of scientific research. I am one of these people as I believe this is morally permissible. However, this concept can quickly get out of hand. How are we to determine what species are scientifically worthy of reviving?
Altogether, I agree with the majority of your blog post. However, I believe there needs to be some conclusions drawn by Sandler and other environmental philosophers about which species are to be revived before a definite opinion can be made.
– Leah