Today’s society is an era of the rapid development of science and technology. Gene-drive technology can change the genes of mosquitoes to reduce the number of mosquitoes and control the spread of disease. In Sandler’s article, he mentioned de‐extinction technology (Sandler, 2013). This technology can revive species that have been extinct for decades or even longer (Sandler, 2013). This is to reconstruct the DNA of extinct species by extracting DNA from extinct species (available from some fossils and specimens), and obtaining genetic information from closely related species, so as to revived extinct species (Sandler, 2013).
The development of de-extinction also brings some ethical concerns. In Sandler’s article, it is mentioned that this technology is unnatural and may cause suffering to animals (Sandler, 2013). The revived species may be harmful to the environment and human beings. Moreover, human beings are playing the role of God (Sandler, 2013). After the revived species, it may be released back to nature, but changes in the environment can cause unadapted of the revived species (Sandler, 2013). This will make it difficult for the revived species to survive in the new environment and may cause extinction again. This deep de-extinction technique may lead to some health problems in offspring and increase the suffering of animals (Sandler, 2013). It is immoral that human behaviour increases the pain of animals. Sandler’s article also mentioned that if this technology is used to alleviate human’s guilt, but does not fully respect nature and species, then the technology is ” hubristic” (Sandler, 2013). Moreover, the technology is not perfect and cannot guarantee its success. At the same time, this technology also has a lot of uncertainty. So far, no species have been successfully revived (kasperbauer, 2017).
At the end of Sandler’s article, it is mentioned that this technology cannot solve the existing ecological problems, nor can it make up for the harm people have done to these species in the past (Sandler, 2013). Therefore, there is no very strong or persuasive ethical reason to revive species that have been extinct for a long time. At the same time, this technology will bear high costs and high risks (Sandler, 2013).
In my opinion, I am not in favour of reviving extinct species by using de-extinction technology. The ecological environment will change slowly with the passage of time, and the structure of some species will also change. If the de-extinction technology enables species revived, it may be considered invasive species and may cause damage to the ecosystem and food chain. Environmental changes may lead to the fact that the revived species cannot survive independently (Sandler, 2013). Although it is mentioned that many of the revived species will be used to research and exhibited rather than release (Sandler, 2013). However, such behaviour increases the pain of animals, which is not in line with ethics and violates animal welfare. At the same time, the development of this technology is irresponsible, because through this technology, people can revive these species when they need to. That makes people will not fully respect and protect the environment and protect the existing species. In my opinion, human beings have not taken up the moral responsibility of treating species equally and protecting the environment.
In general, there are some ethical concerns in reviving the extinct species. I think we should pay more attention to how to protect the existing endangered species. At the same time, I think it is more important for humans to take responsibility for protecting the environment instead of making up for it with technology.
Yiyang
Reference
kasperbauer, T., J. (2017). Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831
Sandler, R. (2013). The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. https://conbio-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12198
Hi Yiyang!
Thanks for the well written blog post on de-extinction! I enjoyed reading your summary of de-extinction as well as your take on the issue. I think your stance on the issue is extremely valid — there are definitely ethical concerns as you have discussed, and we cannot be 100% certain the effects (both positive and negative) the technology will have on the environment and other animals unless we perform a large scale experiment. My reservations with the issue lie with the impending issue of climate change and the effect it will have on the environment and the animals who inhabit it. As we know global warming is causing the climate to change which will present many changes to the environment and have an effect on everything on Earth. With this knowledge in mind, I feel as though we should be doing a better job to protect the animals who currently live on the earth, not who used to live here in terms of conservation efforts. Although I am looking forward to seeing where this technology goes in the future, like you, I feel slightly apprehensive of it due to ethical reasons, as well as it trying to revive the past when the future is very uncertain. Thanks again for your post!
– Ashley
Hi, Yiyang. I really enjoy your blog. Meanwhile, I really agree with your idea in the article, too. Although I feel sorry for the extinct species, Whether it’s artificial or not. But if we are reviving extinct species by using de-extinction technology, it must be damage for the present biosphere and food chain. We always say that we can’t deprive other creatures of their lives, because we don’t have this right, and it’s immoral. However, do we have the right to give life to other creatures? Is it said that survival is moral and extinction is immoral？So, I don’t think people have a moral right to decide the lives of other creatures, which means that we cannot revive extinct species because of morality. It includes some animals that are endangered for non-human reasons. They may be on the brink of extinction because they can’t adapt to the current living environment, and blindly protecting them may only make them suffer more. Therefore, people should not regard themselves as saviours, and think that they have the responsibility to help other creatures except for artificial reasons. By Yunxiang
Hi, Yiyang
It feels very enjoyable to read your article, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on Sandler’s article! Your blog has done an excellent job of summing up Sandler’s assessment of de-extinction technology. And I can not agree more with your point that society should focus more on preserving species that are threatened at this very moment than on resurrecting extinct animals.
I have a different opinion on whether or not we should develop anti-extinction technology. I think the situation facing this technology is similar to that of gene drives, where the potential benefit is as great as the risks. I understand the idea that “we can bring back extinct species” could potentially weaken the effort to prevent extinctions. But we all know that it takes far more resources and uncertainty to resurrect a species than to preserve an existing one. This technology gives us the possibility to make up for our mistakes and think differently about protecting nature. While I wish we could never have to use this technology, many species are likely to disappear faster than people can react, and this technology gives us a chance to redeem our losses. I believe that there is a need for the continued development of anti-extinction technology.
Overall, thank you very much for sharing your views, and I welcome your responses to my comment.
-Dengnan