De-extinction vs. Extinction
In this essay, I will reconstruct the debate de-extinction is morally objectionable. To fully understand the implications of going ahead with de-extinction one must examine the origins. Extinction was once thought to be impossible because it was inconsistent with God’s divine nature. If an all-loving God were to exist, by His nature he wouldn’t destroy the things He created.
They assumed if the organism wasn't present in their area then it must surely exist somewhere else on Earth. Darwin refuted this with his own theory; gradualism, which said that extinction takes place in an orderly, gradual fashion. This was later disproved by Walter Alvarez who discovered the KT event. From here a new theory reigned, catastrophism. There were 20 mass extinction events, five big ones, that claimed unfit and fit animals. Modern scientist claim that Earth is undergoing the sixth mass extinction and by the end of the century ½ of Earth's species will be gone, what caused this sixth extinction is of much debate.
The strongest argument that the pro de-extinction side had is the moral responsibility claim. They objected the idea that de-extinction was ethically or morally wrong. Essentially this side said the destruction caused to the earth over the past 250 years has been anthropogenic and because we are the “Stewards of the Earth” living in the Anthropocene we are morally obligated to try and fix the planet. This is also known as the New Conservationist approach. They refute the idea that humans should quit interfering with nature as wilderness and nature no longer truly exist and even if it did we are simply overstating the fragility of nature as many species have come and gone and we are still thriving. Mass extinction is not an issue with this view which leads me to my response against.
I am completely against de-extinction, and while I agree with the main argument pro de-extinction makes, that humans have caused the environmental degradation and destruction on the planet and we are obligated to fix it, I think the plan to get there is seriously flawed and requires a reassessment of history and our current situation. I would like to introduce the thought that this mindset, a neo-colonialist mindset, is what got us to this problem in the first place. There are also serious questions of the morality and ethics of doing this that need to be addressed before we go creating new species or altering the biosphere by reintroducing animals back to the wild that have previously died off. “Once a mass extinction occurs, it takes millions of years for life to recover, and when it does it generally has a new cast of characters (Kolbert 2009).” I believe the law of unintended consequences would surely come to play here as the new creatures that have taken the places of the old to fulfill earth's duties would no longer have a role to play or the ones reintroduced would no longer have a job. Aside from all of this, I believe there are serious implications for current and introduced animals to be taken advantage of and become an exploited tool for the quest of furthering knowledge.
