In “Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species” by Ronald Sandler, various arguments are presented both in favour of and against the de-extinction of animals. The article’s numerous arguments supporting de-extinction research provide a clear picture of de-extinction’s limitations. I will be looking at some of these arguments and expand on them to further state it’s shortcomings.

Sandler states “Deep de‐extinction may offer an optimistic and creative research agenda in comparison with what some see as the current primary conservation biology activities” (Donlan et al. 2006; Brand 2013; Novak 2013 as cited in Sandler 2013). This argument presents de-extinction technology as an easy way out compared to traditional mitigation and maintenance efforts. However, this raises the question of why traditional methods are incapable of “offering optimistic and creative research methods”. It could be stated that de-extinction brings forth a new way of understanding and tackling environmental problems; along with the numerous scientific advancements the field would generate. However, this creates the idea that people should give up on traditional methods because they lack novelty and instead focus on de-extinction research. But novelty in no way indicates that de-extinction is as effective as traditional methods. Researching de-extinction technology is significantly easier than completely re-structuring the world’s consumption, waste management, and environmental protection systems. Yet, time and time again, case studies show that traditional methods are effective and are capable of generating long term environmental sustainability with proper implementation. So, rather than ponder on the capabilities of a relatively young branch of science, we should do all we can to prevent further environmental degradation where possible. As Sandler stated, ” deep de‐extinction is not itself a significant species conservation strategy because it does not prevent species from going extinct. Nor does it address the causes of extinction.” Humans need to solve the problem at its core rather than looking for temporary solutions or deceiving themselves in the potential that de-extinction projects have. Firms and countries alike should work together to make traditional efforts more practical and easily applicable rather than funding the unknown potential of an expensive scientific innovation.

Another argument Sandler uses to support de-extinction technology is: “many people would find it wondrous and awesome to see a living ivory‐billed woodpecker, thylacine, or mammoth, even if only in a zoo or wildlife park.” Sandler makes the previous statement as a support for the value that de-extinction can create for people as such it is likely Sandler did not intend to imply that humans would bring back extinct species for the sole purpose of human satisfaction. However, assuming de-extinction to be possible, it’s likely that companies and countries alike would attempt to profit off of the created animals as much as possible. Which begs the question: is the resurrection of species for human pleasure ethical? I would argue that it’s not. Given that such animals would have less intrinsic value compared to their original ancestors because they did not evolve into existence. Creating these animals for the sole purpose of profit would only further strip them of any value they have left. Since animals gain value from their interconnectedness with their environment, an animal with no environment to become interdependent on would become meaningless.

An additional argument used to support de-extinction technology is its ability to be used as a last resort, specifically: “If all other conservation efforts for a species fail, then at least the species’ DNA can be preserved so that it can be revived later when the threats to it are mitigated, habitat is reestablished, or it will be useful to us.” But this argument assumes that it’ll be physically possible to reestablish the environment using previously extinct species when nothing else works. Realistically, assuming Sandler is right about de-extinction’s ability to be used as a last resort, it’s likely that when such a time comes the environment will already be irreparable. If a large number of species were to go extinct then the earth would likely be in a position where supporting life, let alone large numbers, would be close to impossible. At which point, the chance of ever reestablishing habitats and environments after they have been completely destroyed isn’t feasible. De-extinction isn’t a good last resort because it only works so long as an environment exists that can support the animals we will introduce into it. But if such an environment doesn’t exist or is on the verge of collapse, de-extinction technology becomes useless. Society needs to use the current strategies developed to combat environmental destruction and develop long term sustainability. Ignoring the problem and suddenly reviving numerous species because of environmental degradation is not the answer. Like Sandler later states: “What would be problematic is using de‐extinction in lieu of alternative approaches.”

Lastly, Sandler takes a utilitarian perspective in his comparison of animal welfare: “Compared with the number of animals already used in research (estimated to be 10–25 million/year in the United States alone) and in animal agriculture (estimated to be 56 billion land animals/year globally), conservation cloning (let alone deep de‐extinction) does not pose a special or very large animal welfare problem.” The argument applies a bias against small groups when compared to larger ones. I found myself asking why the intense suffering of a few is considered less than the suffering of the many? If a small village were to be hit by a tornado and all of the people were to die, would we say that their suffering is less compared to if an earthquake had destroyed New York City killing everyone. The average person wouldn’t make such a claim, so why is it justified to make the same claim with animals? People accept that in either case, the deaths of any number of people is a horrible thing, yet we count and compare animals’ lives as if they were nothing more than statistical figures, all the while disregarding their worth and value. By the logic of Sandler’s argument, it follows that we should disregard the elderly and sick, and focus on the young, middle-aged and healthy since they make up a larger proportion of the population. It’s a radical claim, rather we should not disregard the suffering experiences of a set of people nor animals simply due to their lack of numbers.

 

Holmes Rolston in “What do we mean by the intrinsic value and integrity of plants and animals” describes, as implied, the inherent value of plants and animals within their ecosystems. Rolston explains that plants have intrinsic value no less than animals. He understands that people only focus on the value and condition of animals when they are subject to modification for human desire. However, plants are often overlooked. Plants, although functioning through different processes are of equal importance to the life-death cycle that exists in nature. To paraphrase, it isn’t the lion’s sharp teeth that will allow him to survive a drought, it will be the Bermuda grass that feeds the zebra which the lion preys upon that will ensure it’s survival (pg 4). Rolston provides strong and persuasive argumentation for acknowledging the value that plants have, consequentially begging the question, is genetic modification of plants and animals justifiable? Or to be precise does the genetic modification of plants and animals through human intervention compromise the innate integrity, autonomy, and value that plants and animals have naturally?

His conclusion is that it depends on the context. An example he uses is the American chestnut, it has been destroyed in North America due to a fungus that it is not immune to. However, the Chinese chestnut has a gene that grants it immunity to such fungus. As such it appears justifiable to be able to modify the American chestnut to become immune to the fungus and once again populate North America. To justify this he states “that an organism has been genetically modified does not ipso facto mean that its integrity has been compromised. The modified plant or animal might be a better-adapted fit than it was before. Species in the wild reach local adaptive peaks, but not necessarily optimal ones, and some transgenic modification might relocate a species on a higher adaptive peak.”(pg 5). As is the case with the American chestnut. This is furthered by the fact that genetic mixing occurs abundantly in nature, allowing for the relocation of species to new genetic peaks naturally.  However, it’s important to determine the limit of our reach, to do this we must ask ourselves “how far has the quality of life of the organism been reduced?” (pg 6). I believe a good example to consider would be dogs. Domesticated dogs are as abundant in number as they are in breed. Through generations of genetic manipulation and shuffling at the will of humans dogs have developed genetic traits that allow them to hunt bears, or herd sheep, things a feral dog probably wouldn’t be able to do naturally. But keeping Rolston in mind, would a domesticated dog have a lower value, or compromised integrity than a feral one? It’s apparent that domesticated dogs can be trained to fulfill a large number of roles, policing, assisting the bling, acting as therapy. However, it can be surmised that a domesticated dog in the wild, without human aid, would probably end up dead. This isn’t to say that all dogs would be incapable of sustaining themselves, but it’s understandable that many would be helpless. The largest cause of their helplessness being the lack of proper genetic material that allows dogs to best adapt to their environment. Be it, small snouts, muscle or bone atrophy, or decreased size humans have caused the adaptability of dogs to decrease. Intentionally or not, dogs no longer possess the genetic material that would allow them to adapt and live in an environment without human aid. This brings us back to Rolston who states, “tinkering in nature is in search of better adaptive fit, tinkering in genetic engineering is in search of more profits” (pg 7). Thus through the experimentation of cross-breeding, humans have created a species that in large cannot live without us. Although the quality of life of a dog can be argued to be better with safe housing, water, food, exercise. The fact remains that the natural ability of dogs has been manipulated such that they are bred for sale to make a profit, and must depend on people to survive. It’s clear that their natural autonomy and integrity have been disregarded through their continual forced breeding. As such I believe that when deciding to genetically shuffle or alter a species, plant or animal, we shouldn’t disregard their previous inherent autonomy and value. Rather than focus on the gains of domestication and genetic modification, we should also look at the cons to make the most informed decision that will not strip the value that living beings have.

 

 

 

Noam Mohr in ” A New Global Warming Strategy” expresses the idea that a reduction in meat consumption and promotion of a vegetarian diet will in turn reduce the emission of Methane and help reverse climate change. I believe that his idea is an economically feasible one and will explain why.

I will preface this by stating that in any type of solution to global warming, there is an undetermined, unavoidable amount of money that must be spent to overcome the obstacles that restrict development in fighting global warming. As such for argument’s sake I will assume that Mohr’s ideas are being implemented, or at the least entertained, in a world without Covid-19, and countries are capable of using the necessary resources to implement Mohr’s ideas.

Mohr’s recommendations to effectively implement a widespread vegetarian diet has two aspects. Influencing private firms to promote the consumption of plant-based foods as an aspect of their climate change initiative. As well as getting the government to step in and implement a tax on livestock agriculture, or change subsidy conditions to phase out their operation. Realistically, both these ideas are economic tools that have been used successfully many times.

Private firms are profit-maximizing, meaning they will take any action so long as it benefits their operation. If firms were to promote the adaptation of a vegetarian diet, it is likely that this would gain them public approval which would incentivize people to invest in their company. Similar to how people invest in and support Tesla for their electric vehicle creation, which they perceive to be a valid effort towards a sustainable future. Furthermore, so long as a firm is not negatively affected by the consequential decrease in the size of the livestock agricultural market, multiple other firms would follow until a large portion of industries in the market are promoting the adaptation of vegetarianism or veganism; on the scale that they promote reduced carbon emissions. This would also benefit the competitors to livestock agriculture, as a slow shift away from consumption of meat, would mean firms that sell substitutes for meat products have more to gain and have more reason to promote plant-based diets. This would ultimately produce the widespread awareness of the impact a plant-based diet could have that Mohr wanted, and provide environmentalists with the necessary incentive to act environmentally conscious on a large scale.

Mohr’s suggestion to tax or change subsidies in the livestock market would also be possible. Similar to the Paris Agreement that exists today targeting a reduction in emissions that limits a countries Carbon emissions through government intervention, a similar agreement can be created to combat Methane production. Or rather, it’s more likely an edit of the Paris agreement would incorporate Methane reduction as a tradeoff to decreasing enforcement on Carbon reduction. This way total resources used to limit emissions stay the same while Methane emissions get reduced. Thus, the implementation of taxes or subsidies would follow similar guidelines to those of existing Carbon taxes. As a result, the countries involved would experience an increase in the creation of new business as the emissions that new businesses are most likely to produce in their development would now be regulated to a lesser degree. Similarly, firms that were limited in their ability to produce due to these restrictions will be able to increase production. Combined, this increase in firm development and expansion will allow for the development of more competitive markets; meaning lower prices for consumers and more variety. Such an increase would allow for economies to experience an increase in spending within the country, perpetuating the further development of Methane and emission reduction strategies; enhancing the opportunity to mitigate climate change.

Although Mohr’s idea is not a perfect one, it contains the framework for widespread implementation and opens the conversation on what seemingly meaningless lifestyle changes can alter current global warming trends.

-Elier