As an animal lover myself, I am fascinated by all the different animals and the little intrinsic differences they have between them: each species is unique and valuable on its own. Because of this, extinction is a sad word to me, as it means that every single member of an unique animal species disappears forever from this planet. Extinction due to natural causes are perhaps more acceptable, such as the mammoths and dinosaurs. But when it comes to extinction with some or more anthropogenic causes, I experience frustration with the human race and the destruction it has done to the planet. When I first came across the concept of de-extinction, it seemed absolutely wonderful. De-extinction is “accomplished by reconstructing close approximations of the extinct species’ genomes based on information found in preserved DNA and on genetic information from close living relatives.” ¹ It seems that being able to bring back the species that we have forced into extinction is a matter of justice, an effort of making amends for our past wrongs. Ronald Sandler, however, does not agree with this belief. He takes a generally negative view on the matter of de-extinction, remaining only slightly open to its development when it does not compromise “ethically important things.” ¹ When it comes to justice, he denies this claim, explaining that while individual animals are alive, the species as a whole is not alive, and therefore does not deserve moral considerations. Further, Sandler puts more emphasis on reparations and rehabilitation, rather than a restorative approach. Which means that it is more important to “reform our practices and institutions so as to minimize future extinctions.” ¹ Sandler’s arguments makes it apparent that even though we may feel compelled to fix our mistakes through de-extinction, it is difficult to justify such an urge of justice. I began to think if there are more concerns that I have overlooked.

While Sandler discusses that revived species could have some value to them (thought different from before they went extinct),¹ he overlooks the possibility that de-extinction could render all species’ intrinsic value worthless. While animals’ ecological and instrumental values could remain relatively the same, something intrinsic is undoubtedly lost when biotechnologies are capable of modifying an entire species. In modifying the genes of a species, gene-drive technologies have already undermined much of that value. But with de-extinction, we would be creating an entire species with pieces of DNA invisible to the naked eye, nearly “out of thin air”. This thought is terrifying. If we could easily make our own species, then how valuable would that make all animal species that existed from evolution, who took existence on their own? The respect that we have for nature’s creations would decrease drastically if we are capable of doing the same thing. Sandler expresses a similar concern that conservationist efforts would likely be threatened as resources are diverted,¹ but I think this loss of value concerns beyond the endangered species that need our protection. When we are capable of personalizing and creating species to our hearts’ desires, all that has been made by nature becomes a lot less valuable, as we can easily do the same thing. Sandler addresses this issue of hubris in his paper, in defending that proponents of de‐extinction often “emphasize the value of species and are motivated at least in part by wonder and a sense of responsibility toward extinct species”. As well, he explains that responsibly pursuing de-extinction will not be problematic, including concerns for ecological sensitivity and compassion for the animals involved. I agree entirely with his views. Where I diverge from his opinions is my concern for the reaction from the public. It is reasonable to think that proponents of de-extinction, motivated by science and responsibility, will not take a hubristic attitude towards the natural world. However, such experts cannot prevent a decline of animals’ intrinsic value in the eyes of the public. When something becomes more easily attainable, its value usually decreases. This remains an important concern of mine.

Perhaps my most significant concern is the unstoppable nature of new technology. It seems that we can address many ethical concerns with new technology, allowing more cautious measures to be taken when it comes to their implementation and development. Nonetheless, we don’t seem to be able to halt their development, no matter how much fear is attributed to them. Artificial intelligence is one such technology in which many individuals acknowledge their potential threats to us humans. Still, as Arend Hintze, an expert of AI comments, AI will continue to be developed despite these fears.² Sandler also points out that de-extinction creates value in being a “tremendous scientific and technological achievement” when achieved. How likely is it that we will cease pursuing such an achievement? That is, perhaps, the most terrifying part about technologies. We may be able to contribute to this debate in bringing up more issues to be addressed, but the development and study of this technology will continue to proceed, against all odds.

 

References

¹ Sandler, Ronald. “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species.” Conservation Biology 28, no. 2 (2014): 354–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12198.

² Hintze, Arend. “What an Artificial Intelligence Researcher Fears about AI.” 11 Nov. 2019, theconversation.com/what-an-artificial-intelligence-researcher-fears-about-ai-78655.