Wouldn’t it be just a magical scientific phenomenon to bring back extinct species from the past decade, century, or millennia? With deep de-extinction, this may be possible. Deep de-extinction is bringing back extinct species by rebuilding close prototypes of the extinct species genome from preserved DNA or from genetic information from close living relatives (Sandler 355). Basically, it’s Jurassic Park in real life. Obviously, before we move forward with this new radical and powerful scientific technology, it needs to be ethically evaluated. There is support for this technology from ethicists and also disapproval. I will look into some of these supports and disapprovals with specific regards to the deep de-extinction of mammoths.
First of all, having mammoths back in the world will create value. It may not create lost value because Homo Sapiens and woolly mammoths were not present at the same time. However, it would bring scientific and technological value by advancements in genetic and synthetic biology (Sandler 356). Additionally, even if put these mammoths in the zoo, many people will be pleased to see this wondrous creature that they have only seen in its skeleton, or drawings, or animated movies (Sandler 356). Think about it in terms of species from today. Even if you have never seen a panda upfront, aren’t you happier with the thought that they are not extinct yet? Let’s look at the other way around. Brazil’s Spix macaw are now extinct in the wild and this has created much sadness around the (Twitter) world. Hence, outside of scientific progression, it would be wondrous to see a mammoth during our lifetime.
Should Wholly Mammoths be Brought Back?
Regardless of value, we still need to consider other reasoning for why we should use deep de-extinction with mammoths. Some ethicists claim that we need to bring back species that faced artificial (human-led) extinction (Sandler 355). What about species that did not face artificial extinction? It is widely debated on how exactly the mammoth went extinct, however, many claim that it was due to natural climate change. Around 10,500 years ago, global warming led to the loss of the wholly mammoth habitat, which left isolated populations in islands. These isolated populations faced reduced fertility and diabetes due to mutations and weak genetic variation. Thus, the question is asked: are humans responsible for bringing back mammoths that faced natural extinction? Should humans bring them back? After all, one can claim that mammoth extinction is “meant to be”. This may sound cosmic, but maybe there is a reason why the mammoths species died out before the rise of the Homo Sapiens.
There are also other aspects to consider if the mammoths are brought back. Do we have the expertise, habitat, and technology to create a safe and healthy environment for them? Do we have to create an ecological context for the mammoths (Sandler 356)? Should we not use those recourses to perhaps preserve the species that are going extinct currently? Again, very cosmic, but maybe there is a reason a species exists at the same time as we do. Thus, we may have a more pertinent duty to preserve the current endangered species rather than invest our resources in bringing back another species from thousands of years ago.
Questions for the comments: Are there other reasons that can be found in approval or disapproval of the deep de-extinction of mammoths? Are there consequences such as ecological, economic, and social burdens that will surface with the revival of mammoths through deep de-extinction?
Sources:
SANDLER, R. (2014), The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. Conservation Biology, 28: 354-360. https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1111/cobi.12198
Hi Samar,
Thank you for your post on mammoths and de-extinction, the questions you raise are really interesting and thoughtful. You give a nice summary of the different arguments for and against de-extinction for mammoths, and I would like to comment on your second paragraph. Here you talk about the value that Mammoths would create if brought back from extinction. I agree with you that having live mammoths would bring significant scientific and technological value by advancements in genetic and synthetic biology. However, I disagree with your analogy between deep de-extinction and the value people assign to species like pandas. These species are valuable to people, I believe, because they have been part of the natural world alongside human beings. However, the presence of a live mammoth could potentially be alarming for people (not to mention ecosystems) who haven’t seen these animals for thousands of years. Indeed, part of the reason we find species such as dinosaurs and mammoths so interesting is that they no longer exist. Their extinction, in fact, gives us reasons to care about the species that currently exist on the planet, because they may one day no longer be around (like Brazil’s spix macaw). With this in mind, I agree with your idea that “we may have a more pertinent duty to preserve the current endangered species rather than invest our resources in bringing back another species from thousands of years ago.” All in all, I really enjoyed reading your post and reflecting on the issues you opened for discussion.
~Monica
Your post raises many relevant considerations and forces the ready to consider extinct species alongside endangered species (pandas), which can certainly strike a chord with some folks. I especially like your allusion to Jurassic Park – because my greatest aversion to de-extinction stems from that film, haha.
I think that the scientific or capitalistic benefit to the return of woolly mammoth (or any other pre-historic creature) is not a reasonable justification for their resurrection. I have formed this conclusion partially based on the fear that we as humans cannot fully know what we will be reckoning with (i.e. Jurassic Park), but also based on Animal Rights Theory. I don’t find it ethically sound to produce an animal for the sole purpose of profit (which would be the case if they were resurrected for our wonder) or science for curiosity sake (there doesn’t seem to be any human benefit to experimenting on mammoths, they won’t do a greater good to the medical community). While this may not be a hard and fast Animal Rights Theory perspective – I implore those who want to explore de-extinction to consider: to what end is this a means to?