This week in Philosophy 355 we are discussing the topic of de-extinction as a method for conservation. De-extinction is a novel conservation technology heavily influenced by cloning; however, it is defined by T.J. Kasperbauer as “the process of reviving genetically extinct species” (2017, pg. 1).

Since many extinctions are catalyzed by humans, proponents of this technology argue that de-extinction is a good idea for various ethical reasons such as: restoring justice, reestablishing lost value, creating value, and that it is a conservation last-resort (Sandler 2013). However, those who are in opposition to the technology are in disagreement due to it being unnatural, along with concerns about animal welfare, the potential ecological and human health impacts, and it is essentially a way of “playing God” with nature (Sandler, 2013, pg. 357). This blog post will examine the debate of de-extinction through an ecocentric philosophical ethical theory standpoint using Holmes Rolston’s viewpoints to drive the discussion as to whether this technology is unnatural or not.  

As mentioned, Rolston is an ecocentrist — a philosophical ethical theory that extends moral considerability to all things (no matter if they are sentient or not) and species as wholes while rejecting anthropocentrism (the view where only humans are assigned moral value). In his paper, Rolston speaks a lot about the importance of species and how species lineages have gone through natural selection in which valuable traits are chosen to help the organism, and therefore the species adapt and sustain life. Rolston responds to the claim that artificial selection (where humans interfere in natural selection by choosing desired traits of the organism) for de-extinction  is “unnatural” where he rebuttals and claims that “most of our cultural activities are unnatural in the sense that they are not found in wild spontaneous nature” (2002, pg. 10). Furthermore, according to Rolston, this genetic manipulation of the organism’s DNA is no more unnatural than that of plant breeding, where we use artificial selection to genetically alter more favourable and lucrative plants for consumption (2002). Rolston concludes his rebuttal in saying that as long as those who are manipulating or artificially selecting things that are found in nature are to go about it in a respectful way that appreciates and acknowledges the intrinsic value typical to natural selection, then it is okay to continue (2002). 

In my personal opinion, I really agree with Rolston’s critique on those who think de-extinction is unnatural. I feel as though a lot of people do not realize how frequent it is to artificially select traits or modify DNA sequences for common things such as the crops we eat. Furthermore, in response to his concluding statement, I think that it is important for everyone to value the intrinsic worth of all life on Earth when going about daily life or performing these novel de-extinction experiments. While it is a new technology and many of the workings have to be sorted out in order for those who are wary of it to subscribe to it, I think that it is very interesting and it has the potential to be a great conservation tool. I look forward to seeing this technology progress in the future. 

-Ashley 

References:

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

Rolston, H. (2002). What do we mean by the intrinsic value and integrity of plants and animals? Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University. 5-11. https://mountainscholar.org.  

Sandler, R. (2013). The Ethics of Reviving Long Lost Extinct Species. Department of Philosophy, Northeastern University. 354-360. https://conbio-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca.