This weeks readings covered an interesting topic that I had not thought of before, The ability to Bring back species from extinction (known as De-extinction). My mind ran straight towards the thought of bringing back dinosaurs (thinking immediately of  Jurassic park). My immediate reaction was negative as, that would be near impossible based on the environmental requirements of dinosaurs, plus the danger that would come with having them around. However, the two articles I will discuss did not mention dinosaurs, but instead animals that have only recently gone extinct such as the Passenger pigeon. Both T.J. Kasoerbauer and Ronald Sandler brought up important concerns and questions regarding de-extinction that I agree are vital to answer before moving forward with the prospect of bringing back extinct species. I would like to go over all the points I agree with but I lack time so I will go over two key arguments and concerns that jumped out at me. First being our real obligation towards extinct species, and second, the potential outcome of successfully accomplishing de-extinction.

Ronald Sandler mentions that a reason to bring back species who’s extinction was caused by humans is to bring justice to the species and right our wrong. However, as he mentions soon after, “it is not possible to harm or wrong a species because a species do not have aims or welfares distinct from those of the organisms that’s comprise them.”(Pg. 355)  So to bring back a species to make up for what has already happened does not work and in fact as Kasperbauer points out, “for many species, the original cause of extinction still exists.” (Pg.4) so even if we were to bring them back for the sake of justice, they could very well end up extinct again because of us. Sandler goes on to say that it would be more beneficial to look after future populations of species rather than focusing on bringing back ones we have already lost. The wrong can be made right again by acknowledging our mistakes, learn from them,  and  treat the species we do have better than before. I agree that it would be more beneficial to focus our efforts on conserving the species we still have that are endangered. Even in the event that we use de-extinction on a species such as the passenger pigeon, they will not be the individuals that were harmed in the past, and won’t necessarily even be the same as those species. We can try our best to recreate the species but it will most likely not be a 100% match anyways. Another argument towards the supposed justice it would bring is that de-extinction could potentially only harm the individuals as the very process of reviving a species will involve a large number of failed attempts and lost lives. With this in mind, bringing back a species could possibly cause more harm to them rather than fixing what has happened.

An issue that both articles raise is the effect de-extinction will have after it has been successfully accomplished. There is a chance the species could become invasive and only create more of an environmental problem for us and for other animals. Although one of the main reasons for pursuing De-Extinction is that the species could prove highly beneficial to the environment and help create more diversity where it may be needed, it could also have an opposite effect. Sandler does point out however, that the animals that are in line to be tested would most likely be unable to survive long if they were able to spread because there would be low genetic diversity and rates of reproduction(Pg. 358). Kasperbauer believes that in the case of passenger pigeons, there is a significant chance that they could become invasive as they were known to travel in flocks of billions, because of this, there is a dangerous chance that they could eat up food supplies for other animals and cause great damage. I believe it really depends on the species, as Sandler mentions that mammoths, for example, would have a low rate of reproduction, making it less likely for them to really become a threat as numbers would be easier to control. Of course research should be done on each species that is being considered for de-extinction so as to run through all potential risks they may have on the environment.

Both articles brought up interesting and important points regarding de-extinction. It is definitely hard to come to a definite decision on whether this technology should be fully pursued or not as there are many good arguments for and against it. But as both articles and I  agree, extensive research is required before decisions can be made. I do believe that we have a bigger obligation towards maintaining the populations we have now rather than focusing on long gone species but I do also see the positive implications this technology could bring to the field as well.

-Olivia Salioh

 

Sources Cited

Sandler Ronald.(2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354-360.

T. J. Kasperbauer.(2017). Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20:1, 1-14.