The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species

Abstract

There now appears to be a plausible pathway for reviving species that have been extinct for several decades, centuries, or even millennia. I conducted an ethical analysis of de-extinction of long extinct species. I assessed several possible ethical considerations in favor of pursuing de-extinction: that it is a matter of justice; that it would reestablish lost value; that it would create new value; and that society needs it as a conservation last resort. I also assessed several possible ethical arguments against pursuing de-extinction: that it is unnatural; that it could cause animal suffering; that it could be ecologically problematic or detrimental to human health; and that it is hubristic. There are reasons in favor of reviving long extinct species, and it can be ethically acceptable to do so. However, the reasons in favor of pursuing de-extinction do not have to do with its usefulness in species conservation; rather, they concern the status of revived species as scientific and technological achievements, and it would be ethically problematic to promote de-extinction as a significant conservation strategy, because it does not prevent species extinctions, does not address the causes of extinction, and could be detrimental to some species conservation efforts. Moreover, humanity does not have a responsibility or obligation to pursue de-extinction of long extinct species, and reviving them does not address any urgent problem. Therefore, legitimate ecological, political, animal welfare, legal, or human health concerns associated with a de-extinction (and reintroduction) must be thoroughly addressed for it to be ethically acceptable.

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

“…Most importantly, it will be essential to sustain processes of evolution by natural selection in the face of powerful human tendencies to select the traits of and even to domesticate the native species we are trying to conserve as wild (Western 2001, Palkovacs et al 2012. The need to refocus conservation science on sustaining evolutionary processes and their dynamics requires efforts and expertise that go far beyond simply preserving or restoring historical states of ecosystems, habitats, or populations, and this need can only grow as environments become ever more dynamic (Antrop 2006, Hoffmann and Sgro 2011, technological advances enable more precise management of population genetics, the revival of extinct species, and the creation of novel life forms, and these technological capacities are confronted with expanded social demands for rewilding, conservation beyond protected areas, and other unconventional, controversial, and poorly understood strategies for restoring and sustaining nonhuman nature (Hobbs et al 2011, Redford et al 2013, Robbins and Moore 2013, Marris 2014, Sandler 2014.…”

Lazarus ecology: Recovering the distribution and migratory patterns of the extinct Carolina parakeet

“…As more and more species go extinct, conservation options become more limited, which may make such a controversial idea more appealing. Although ethical and practical issues surround this approach to conservation (see Nogués‐Bravo, Simberloff, Rahbek, & Sanders, 2016; Sandler, 2014), the de‐extinction literature is expanding rapidly. So far, much attention has focused on selecting species that are good candidates for de‐extinction (Seddon et al., 2014) and on the development of techniques required to bring back an extinct species (Church & Regis, 2012).…”

Should extinction be forever

“…If we can revive extinct species perhaps we have the responsibility to do so as a matter of justice for species wiped out by anthropogenic forces; we could make up for past wrongs by recreating these species (Sandler 2013). However, even if humans did drive a species extinct, the humans alive today are not likely responsible (Cottrell et al 2013).…”

“…Since species do not have goals or aims, they cannot technically be wronged (Sandler 2013). A species merely exists; this cannot even be said to be a goal.…”

“…Therefore, it makes no difference to the species if it exists or not and it cannot be wronged by non-existence. The natural world also does not have goals or aims, so it cannot be wronged by the extinction of species (Sandler 2013). The concept of right and wrong is a human construction, and so it cannot be applied to other species and nature, as in nature was wronged by the extinction of species.…”