This week we are discussing de-extinction, a topic that is very fascinating to me because it is actually very good news for us to be resurrecting extinct creatures. Climate change, human exploitation, and habitat destruction are wreaking havoc on life on Earth. Living organisms adapt to the harsh environment and they reproduce or die out over time, but nowadays, with the increase of human activities, thousands of species go extinct every year. Therefore, the recovery of extinct organisms has become a subject of research for many scientists. In fact, with the advancement of technology, this impossibility has become a reality. But the emergence of this technology inevitably raises many questions that we should consider, namely, is it ethical? Today’s blog will briefly analyze this technology through Kasperbauer‘s article.

First of all, what is de-extinction? Kasperbauer stated that “‘De-extinction’ refers to the process of reviving previously extinct species, discussed most recently in the context of advances in synthetic biology.” (2017) That is, by first sequencing the DNA of the extinct species and then inserting their DNA into the denucleated oocyte of a close relative and then into the embryo for development (2017). Kasperbauer mentioned that “an optimistic estimate predicts that the genes of the extinct species will not be identical to those of the previously extinct species. offspring will be 80-90% similar”. (2017) This means that our recovered organism is optimistically close to the previous life form and its offspring can be mostly similar to the previous organism. Therefore, this means that we are not yet able to get a fully de-extinction organism.

So, let’s think about some of the problems we face and how we should deal with them once we can fully recover an intact extinct organism. I think its emergence could bring some degree of benefit to our ecosystem. The rigorous Kasperbauer also identifies five key challenges of de-extinction, which means that if it is indeed feasible, we need to address these challenges first to protect our existing ecosystem. The challenge for de-extinction is that, for many species, the original cause of extinction still exists.” (2017) It means that we first need to Verify that the main cause of the threat in the environmental community has been removed or reduced. So if we don’t solve the problem, even if we recover it, it’s going to be endangered in a similar way. The second point is “invasiveness”, which I understand to mean that when a new species enters an ecosystem, it causes an imbalance in the ecosystem, i.e., it takes away resources from similar species (2017). (2017) This means that the invasion will cause problems for other species. The third point is that it is still about “invasion”, which means that if we resurrect organisms that are vulnerable to extinction, we can genetically modify them to be less aggressive. The fact that this means they are less likely to survive means even more that this so-called de-distinction may be short-lived for them. The fourth point that I think is worth considering is that even if we bring back extinct species, it will be difficult to mimic the ecosystems in which they once lived. I believe the author is more interested in conveying to us the difficulty of this project. Because a single species can be produced when we have the technology to do so, but over time our ecosystems have become very different from what they were before. So, the question that comes to mind is, will we be able to bring it back to Earth in a way that will create a good environment for it to live in and not affect the habitat of other organisms? The last and most important challenge that Kasperbauer brings to us here is that “it seems to entail significant suffering for sentient individual animals.” (2017) Here I think that in fact, the evolution of organisms is about reproducing offspring, and perhaps we don’t know if they want to be de-extinct or not. considering the suffering of sentient animals is something we morally need to give them respect. However, if it really can bring more good than bad to the ecosystem, I think the suffering is worth it.

In general, I do find that De-extinction seems to be a good technology for our lives. Perhaps it will also allow us to compensate for our impact on the environment. I personally would support it if it could really “rejuvenate” the ecosystem. At the same time, we need to remain cautious, even if it brings us psychological comfort. But we also need to consider whether this compensation is really what they (extinct species) want it to be.

Work cited：

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

-Linfeng Xie