First of all, I would like to distinguish deep de-extinction from cloning. It means revive species that been extinct decades ago rather than more recent species. (355) Although a similar technique uses in both situations, the value and purpose of these two are different. In “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species,” Ronald Sandler argues that deep de-extinction is not intrinsically problematic but not so urgent or more ethically important compare to other conservation measures and concerns. (359) According to Sandler’s article, I will discuss the duty that humans have to make up their past the concerns associate with deep de-extinction. Then, I would explain Sandler’s idea about deep de-extinction is mainly techno-science oriented instead of conservation-oriented.

Human interruption is the major cause for species extinction, and intrinsic values associated with species are independently from humans. Some people would argue that some species are non-scient. And since they are no longer exist, they would not have feelings or interests in bringing back to life. However, every species has its values, and we as humans should respect that. If humans are the cause of their extinction, even they do not have interests or feelings. It is our responsibility to help restore their lives as they have the right to live. Therefore, we could use deep de-extinction as a tool to reintroduce into the environment. However, it is almost impossible to send these revive species back to their habitat. Since they were “born” in a lab setting and their habitats are different from the past. Also, even we use deep de-extinction to bring them back, many of them will use for research and exhibition instead of release. (358) In this way, to solve people’s concern for ecology and human health. While these “new-born” species would lose their intrinsic value as well as ecological value. They were not in the ecosystem means they cannot contribute to the environment. In the end, they would become subjects people use to study and display rather than species who deserve our respects. Hence, humans still own duty for the extinct species since their life cannot restore by deep de-extinction.

Deep de-extinction could create scientific and even economic value for the extinct species, but it cannot restore their intrinsic and ecological value. Additionally, it is not a critical species conservation strategy due to it cannot prevent extinction or address the cause of extinction. (357) To achieve the deep de-extinction would require advanced technology, intelligent researchers, and human-made habitat for the species. It need support from the government and companies to keep this program running. However, these supporters care less about conservation than getting profit. And these researchers need to convince them to invest. Therefore, despite the unpredictable risk associate with release these species, they need them to make profits. Although these technologies can contribute to other conservation methods, it is not urgent for de-extinction. To achieve conservation, we would need people to realize the cause of these extinctions and prevent them in the future. Moreover, the conservation approach to the currently endangered species is more significant. They are alive and would impact the ecosystem and other species around them. The consequence of losing them is far more severe than bring back the species that we already a lost long time ago.

In conclusion, I would agree with Sandler’s argument on it is that urgent to achieve de-extinction. And there are more substantial conservation methods we could consider rather than develop new technology.

Ruoxin

 

Reference:

Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long extinct species.” Conservation Biology, 2013.