START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
2,604,771 people care about Environment & Wildlife

Should We Resurrect Extinct Animals?

Should We Resurrect Extinct Animals?

De-extinction is a subject which has fascinated people for many years, and what was once the subject of science fiction and hypothetical debate is now a very real possibility and one which requires some serious discussion.

Scientists say that they now have the technology to begin the genetic reconstruction from DNA taken from the bodies of extinct animals. The concept is almost identical to that shown in the cult classic film Jurassic Park, but before fans get too excited, it’s worth pointing out that dinosaurs are out of the question as the DNA samples are simply too old.

The ethical implications of de-extinction are vast and varied, and they require further investigation before scientists should be allowed to begin bringing animals back from the dead.

Just because we can, it doesn’t mean we should. The outcome of the proposed de-extinction programs, provided they are ultimately successful, will have far reaching effects on the planet’s complex ecosystems and this is something which nobody is able to accurately predict.

What Would a Successful Program Involve?

For a successful de-extinction program to exist, we would have to decide what the objectives were and how we would propose to re-introduce the animals into the wild once they return to the land of the living.

When is an extinct animal no longer considered to be extinct? When is a mammoth a mammoth and not an elephant-mammoth thingy? If an elephant was used to birth a mammoth baby, when can we ever claim that it is a mammuthus primigenius in its own right? Technically only once the offspring of two successfully mated first generation elephant-mammoths were born.

If our ultimate aim is de-extinction of a species, and not just the resurrection of a single specimen or family, then a successful program would involve the complete reintroduction of a large number of animals into their ‘natural habitat’ — which raises yet more questions, such as what are their natural habitats in the modern world, what effect will this have on the complex ecosystems in existence today, and how will they cope with a different climate to the one in which they lived in previously?

Righting Human Wrongs

Many advocates of de-extinction programs are keen to explore the possibility of using our modern scientific capabilities to put right some of the wrongs which humans have inflicted on extinct animal species.

It’s the idea that we cannot change what has been done in the past, but we can use our scientific ingenuity to try and reintroduce these lost animals back to the world and effectively restore the balance of nature.

Are Resources Better Spent Saving Endangered Species?

While it may be a noble endeavour to try and reintroduce animal species which have been wiped off the planet due to human interference, many conservationists believe that given the current number of endangered species, we should be focusing all our energies, time and money on saving these animals before they are added to the growing list of extinct ones.

After all, surely it would make more sense to focus on prevention rather than trying to restore species which are already lost. The scientific community should be working alongside conservationists to find solutions to the pressing problems which living species are facing, otherwise we will end up heading down a slippery slope where our ego takes precedence over common sense and logic.

De-extinction may be well intentioned, but given the current state of environmental degradation and habitat destruction, the truth is that we need to stop the rot before we spend resources on a scientific vanity project which would hail us as masters of genetic reconstruction.

In the time it would take to see a successful project completed, hundreds if not thousands of species would have become extinct, rendering the biodiversity of the planet no better off. Our number one priority should be to save what we’ve got, before they are added to the list of extinct species and future scientists are debating how to bring them back to life.

Read more: , , ,

Photo Credit: TylerIngram

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

475 comments

+ add your own
2:17AM PDT on Sep 4, 2014

I think the money should be put to better use, like to prevent living species from extinction.

11:15AM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

Priority should be looking after the species we still have, some of them just barely.

7:43PM PDT on Aug 27, 2014

We can't take care of ourselves, let alone the animals that are here now, domestic & wildlife. You want to resurrect something extinct? Try resurrecting common sense!!

4:33AM PDT on Aug 22, 2014

yes

8:21PM PDT on Aug 20, 2014

I don't think it's a good idea for many reasons. Where would we put them? They could not be placed in an environment they used to live in. It would be wrong to place them in zoos or cages. So I say let them go!

9:33PM PDT on Aug 17, 2014

pure foolishness!! Frankenstein science! there's not enough love and caring to all the sentient beings on Earth right now

3:13AM PDT on Aug 15, 2014

Their efforts would be best spent protecting endangered species that exist today.

3:11AM PDT on Aug 15, 2014

It would be wrong!

10:37AM PDT on Aug 13, 2014

After reading the article, and through the comments, I feel I am in the minority with this.

I find the idea that de-extinction could happen, but also feel that we should proceed carefully. We don't need this as an excuse to stop taking care of the animals we have, or eliminating a species with the justification "Well, we can bring it back later".

Priority in this technology should go to endangered species. Extinct species should be reviewed for candidacy and viability of environment before attempts to return them begin. I present Evidence A - the American Lobo wolf. Once endangered, released into their former habitats, and now at risk of being endangered again by the same people that had put them in that position in the first place.

Creatures such as the Wooly Mammoth would be nothing more than a curiosity. Why would we return them? What vital position would they hold in their eco-system?

Thylacines (one of my favorite critters) should be researched more before trying to return them. There is strong evidence they, like the Przewalski's horses (another fave), do exist, however in small remote numbers. If the scientists are so eager to recreate a species that still exists, what other oversights might they make?

I really like the idea, as mentioned before, and I feel that this technology should be developed and supported, but it not the answer in all situations.

10:27AM PDT on Aug 13, 2014

After reading the article, and through the comments, I feel I am in the minority with this.

I find the idea that de-extinction could happen, but also feel that we should proceed carefully. We don't need this as an excuse to stop taking care of the animals we have, or eliminating a species with the justification "Well, we can bring it back later".

Priority in this technology should go to endangered species. Extinct species should be reviewed for candidacy and viability of environment before attempts to return them begin. I present Evidence A - the American Lobo wolf. Once endangered, released into their former habitats, and now at risk of being endangered again by the same people that had put them in that position in the first place.

Creatures such as the Wooly Mammoth would be nothing more than a curiosity. Why would we return them? What vital position would they hold in their eco-system?

Thylacines (one of my favorite critters) should be researched more before trying to return them. There is strong evidence they, like the Przewalski's horses (another fave), do exist, however in small remote numbers. If the scientists are so eager to recreate a species that still exists, what other oversights might they make?

I really like the idea, as mentioned before, and I feel that this technology should be developed and supported, but it not the answer in all situations.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

oh ...i couldn't read this has it was too upsetting but i really wish that someone would beat the crap…

I'm owned by cats since over 20 years, and can't imagine my life without them. Cats are really magic…

meet our writers

Julie M. Rodriguez Julie M. Rodriguez is an arts, green living, and political writer based in San Mateo, CA. Her work... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.