I love the idea of reversing extinctions. Though in my opinion it must be done with an ecocentric set of morals. This means animals that went extinct due to non-human causes must be left extinct: no dinosaurs, no dire wolves or cave bears, no North American horses, nothing that went extinct because of normal climate changes from the flux of ice ages. Human induced damage should be reversed when possible, as Kasperbaur says, to reestablish a species’ former role within an ecosystem. The integrity of an ecosystem should be a paramount goal of an environmentally responsible society. While we try our best to remove invasive, likewise we should do our best to de-extinct the animals we killed off. Kasperbauer introduced some primary ethical challenges that complicate a desire for de-extinction: I will attempt to nullify what in my opinion were the most prominent three.

The first complication that Kasperbauer introduces is that “for many species, the original cause of extinction still exists” (2017). For his example of a passenger pigeon this means humans as a threat still exist, therefore human over hunting could happen again. I think classifying humans as the threat is too convenient and simple. Culture was the problem. The culture that decimated bison (and the passenger pigeon) is gone. If it were not then the few remaining bison in our parks would not be remaining. Instead of following through with the extinction we are now trying to stabilize the population. Social media of today also strongly discourages practises like overhunting – look how trophy hunters are treated on facebook. The original threat IS gone.

“The second challenge for de-extinction is that there is a risk of species becoming invasive” (2017). Kasperbauer says passenger pigeons would be classified as ‘invasive’ if they caused a negative impact on an ecosystem, he goes on to describe how their huge flocks may consume large amounts of food and habitat other birds currently depend on (2017). This in my eyes would be healthy competition. The other bird species living in the native habitat of passenger pigeons got on before the extinction and they would again with a reintroduction. Other bird species’ populations would certainly fall to make room for the passenger pigeons (resources are finite), but there is no reason to believe they would be pushed to extinction themselves.

“The most challenging moral issue raised by de-extinction is that it seems to entail significant suffering for sentient individual animals” (2017). To this I would argue that evolution happens for one sole purpose and that is to increase fitness and survivability in order to pass on your genes. It is my opinion that the one goal in life, common to all living things, is to have kids; it is the driving force behind evolution. To this end, as having offspring is the ultimate achievement, I do not think suffering is a valid consideration. Suffering would be welcome if it means being given the chance to continue your lineage (your species). More, I think suffering is viewed in this example with a narrow mind. Just because suffering is ‘bad’ does not mean it should be avoided. Sometimes suffering is necessary for the achievement of a greater goal, such as suffering through university.

I think there is no reason not to pursue de-extinction. It should be done with caution, but it must be done in order to restore ecological integrity.

T. J. Kasperbauer (2017) Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831