This week, one of the readings that I decided to analyze was T.J. Kasperbauer’s “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Exitinction,” and I agree with how he evaluated the ethics of de-extinction, which is, “…the process of reviving previously extinct species…in the context of advances in synthetic biology.” (1) One of the normative ethical theories that I recognized from the beginning of the course is how Utilitarianism (maximize the overall good/consequences for the greatest number of individuals) plays into the ethical concerns about justifying possible suffering (for example: genetic malformations, unadaptability in the current environment that a certain species is not used to, hunting, etc.) that might come from de-extinction technologies. Kasperbauer criticizes that this justification is problematic, for the idea is that any species that undergoes de-extinction would have its first few generations initially suffer yet this would allow for the species to successfully continue existing in the future. So the suffering of animals, in a utilitarianists’ view, can be dismissed to provide the successful future consecutive offspring.
I agree that this argument is fallacious, as Kasperbauer notes that it could be possible that the species that undergoes de-extinction technology could suffer significantly in the future as well; would the initial suffering of the species be justifiable then? (6)Do the ends justify the means? No, I argue they would not because there is significant suffering that the species would be experiencing as a whole(initially and consecutively) due to being subjected to de-extinction technology.
In addition to this major concern about species suffering, there are other important, foreseeable negative impacts on the environment and human beings that Kasperbauer highlights: not addressing the original cause of extinction for that particular species, the species becoming invasive to the environment, etc. (4) So with these negative, unethical impacts on the environment as a whole, I argue that there needs to be more research done on de-extinction technologies before more advancement is established in this area of science.
But despite Kasperbauer’s numerous criticisms about the probable negative impacts of this new technology, he advocates for scientists to proceed in the researching of de-extinction technology without a plan for re-introduction. (10) I completely disagree with his stance, for how can this technology continued to be developed when there are more foreseeable negative outcomes than positive outcomes? For instance, Kasperbauer asserts that this technology, “…has the potential to provide a number of benefits to both humans and animals, and much of the technology can be developed without causing harm to any sentient beings.” (10)
First, from a ethical standpoint, I wonder how is it possible to avoid causing significant suffering to a species when there is a threat of genetic malformations, unadaptability in the current environment that a certain species is not used to, and hunting, especially if there is no plan to curb these threats? Yes, there might be a possiblity that the technology can be developed where genetic malformations are non-existent/minimal, however the other threats to the de-extinction species cannot be extinguished just by advancing technology; there needs to be a plan to reintroduce these animals that ensures the safety of the environment as a whole, where no/minimal suffering is probable.
Second, what exactly are these benefits that Kasperbauer claims would come from de-extinction technology? Conservation, of course, is a significant target for this scientific advancement where Kasperbauer notes that instrumental de-extinction (“bringing back those species that can serve some useful function for either human beings or ecosystems”(3)) would be a fairly large benefit, such as “enhancing the ecosystem function”(3) and advancing science. The benefits for the environment seem to provide enough reason to continue with de-extinction technology, but I would argue that there would be more damage to the environment that would result from this technology (mentioned above), especially if there is not a plan put in place before more time, energy, and resources are complied into this scientific advancement. Also, I believe that this scientific advancement in an ethical context, does not uphold the justification for the foreseeable damages (without a re-introduction plan) that will cause suffering to the de-extinct species and the ecosystem as a whole; the human benefit from de-extinction technology seems quite meager in comparison to me. However, if a re-introduction plan is properly curated, then I would agree with Kasperbauer that advancing this technology would definitely be a great benefit for humanity.
So, should de-extinction technology be completely dismissed, based off of the negative effects/risks this new technology poses to the environment? No, I believe that with this technology there are significant benefits for the ecosystem, especially with the species that have gone extinct because of humans. Yet creating a plan beforehand, with the aid of more research, could prevent suffering and irreversible damage to species and the environment. Ethically, the best possible plan of action is to conduct more research before advancing de-extinction technologies.
By: Melissa
Works Cited
Kasperbauer, T. J. “Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction.” Ethics, Policy, and Environment, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14. Taylor and Francis Online, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831
De-extinction… I still find the concept something tantamount to science fiction but I agree with you in that we cannot simply write-off transgenic technologies nor can we simply run out and start bringing back species that we have destroyed. I would add that in cases where we can de-extinct in favour of re-balancing an eco-system or adding to an ecosystem in a complimentary way that we may well have an obligation to pursue transgenic paths.
On the other hand, where transgenics might become abusive is when we have to create old/new life from keystone animal descendants. Sandler, Rolston, and Kasperbauer do not dwell on the details of transgenics and these are details that we must dwell upon. We might be able to back breed the Quagga back to life but to generate a mammoth embryo vis a vis gene editing and cloning and then some how get the embryo into an elephant’s uterus without harming the elephant is just not doable. I won’t even ask what happens when the elephant, a unisystem species like a horse, gives birth to a calf that is significantly larger than those of her species. There is a level of experimentation and harm that cannot ever be allowable with transgenic technologies even if we can conceivable bring the dead to life again.
We do need an ethics to guide us in this and I do not think conversations around value are adequate to the task. We need to think about ecosystems. Why bring back the passenger pigeon if its numbers may well damage an ecosystem. I won’t deny a debt here but this does not mean that today’s species can or should pay the debt we caused. There is no value in that from an eco-centrist’s perspective. Yet, something like the Quagga, a keystone creature that, if back bred back to life, may well re-inherit zebras with new/old DNA that could fortify several breeds of zebras and give them staying power where they do not have it. A de-extinction project like this one might be worth our time and the zebra’s time.
Whatever the issue, and however we frame the debate, ethics, especially from an eco-centric position, have to play out. What is more, we must also consider the species and its development and finally the animals involved in the transgenic changes. I would dearly love to bring back a Wooley Mammoth or a Saber-Tooth Tiger but can we ? Would they be to the advantage of today’s permafrost regions from which they came. Theoretically, science says they may well be. On the other hand, science is not at all sure that these regions still have the plant species needed in a Mammoth’s diet or that a Saber-Tooth could survive on today’s animals. Sometimes we have to experiment but without a strong conscience backed by ethics, I am not at all convinced that even with technology from the future that we have what we need.
Tammy (Juniper 8)
I completely agree with you, using a utilitarian ideology to support the use de-extinction technology’s by offsetting current generational suffering against a hypothetical enrichment in future generations is contradictory. There is truly no way to guarantee the happiness and satisfaction of future generations regardless of technological advancements. Without further research into the intricacy associated with synthetic biology, what can be guaranteed is the first generations will experience heightened suffering caused by issues in the technology of de-extinctions.
De-extinction is a techno-fix solution, that you correctly describe as focusing primarily on the effect of extinction, and not the cause. The idea of de-extinction can act as a smokescreen for environmental needs, by focusing attention on bringing back extinct species instead of dealing with what caused the extinction and what will likely cause more extinctions.
This blog post is very well written and highlights important questions in the ongoing ethical debate on de-extinction technologies. Technology cannot solve all anthropogenic problems, and often inadvertently creates more issues that need solving. While there are definitive benefits to using technology as a solution, research should be conducted at the highest level to mitigate the presence of ethical problems and dilemmas.
Thank You
Hi Michelle,
I thoroughly enjoyed your take on Kasperbauer’s paper! After reading his paper, I also had very similar questions concerning whether or not the initial suffering of a species made the process of de-extinction justifiable.
In the article, Kasperbauer states that a species as a whole cannot experience pain or pleasure. As a result, he argues that there is no need to consider their interests when re-introducing a species back into existence. However, I would agree with you in that the significant suffering experienced from de-extinction technologies, both initially and consecutively, would be experienced by species as wholes. It is therefore irresponsible and dangerous of scientists to justify the use of these technologies simply by acknowledging and accepting that individual members of the first few species will have suffer for the species as a whole to thrive. This, I believe, fails to take into consideration the value of a species as a whole.
Your blog does a great job at highlighting this issue. I would agree with you in that far more research needs to be done given the uncertainty of de-extinction technologies and our awareness of the potential negative implications of re-introducing a species back into the environment.
Thank you