We’ve done it. We’ve advanced genetics - and other fields - sufficiently that we can revive extinct species. Go humanity!
First up as a test: The Dusky Seaside Sparrow, poor little fella. Then the thylacine.
But the debate becomes trickier. What about fauna that have been extinct for thousands of years. Tens of thousands?
The debate rages on covering two main fronts:
First, is it ethical at all to bring back species that have gone extinct? Most people - not all - can see bringing back recently extinct species as the impact will be light. But the older ones? Is it legit to bring back the Dodo or the Moa? Mammoths?
Second, what about potential environmental impact of bringing back extinct species? Will they only live in zoos or is it better to release them into the wild? Can the Russian and Canadian north support herds of mammoths? Will some other species be pushed out of the barrier islands if the Carolina Parakeet is reintroduced?
And always, ALWAYS, there are the people pushing for - which is, in this scenario, possible - the Jurassic Park scenario. Bringing back dinosaurs. What does an ethical treatment of bringing back something that old and different. Is it ethical to bring back an entire ORDER of animals that may or may not be able to adapt to modern conditions?
You’re on the panel discussing the implications. The lights go red on the cameras. The world is watching. What do you say?
Is it ethical? IMO, yes, as long as it’s done in a way that doesn’t have detrimental effects on the modern ecosystem. For long-extinct species, that’s very easy to say, and much, much harder to do – so I’d say that, with today’s knowledge, it’s only ethical to bring them about in circumstances in which we can keep them restricted to controlled areas (parks, reserves, etc.) with no reasonable chance of being released into the wild. It’d probably be pretty easy to do this for the woolly mammoth – set aside a patrolled, fenced reserve in Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada, or similar, with a small number of mammoths, and they will probably be relatively easy to control with the right resources.
I’d say do it, because IMO the awesomeness outweighs the potential negatives. And more seriously, someone is going to do this kind of thing eventually… better to do it under controlled and thoughtful conditions than at the whims of some future billionaire enthusiast with a private island.
Given our experience with invasive species, like zebra mussels and rabbits in Australia and so forth, the general recommendation I would give is to keep them in zoos and not release them into the wild. Obviously this is easier to control with large-bodied animals, like mammoths and dinosaurs. I would be very chary with things like insects or plants (see: kudzu).
To some extent it is a dilemma - if the species can survive in the wild, then they are going to push out existing species, if any, occupying the same ecological niche. If not, they die out again.
The first law of ecology is, you can’t do just one thing. Setting up a controlled environment - a game park, a zoo, whatever - at least keeps the ripples contained, in theory.
Advances in cloning don’t address the issue of loss of habitat, which is a primary driver of extinctions. So maybe we bring back the passenger pigeon - does it help?
Let’s do this for the woolly mammoth, because “fun”:
Because it would be awesome (i.e. enormous scientific and public interest). Stuff involving science that excites people is good for its own sake – it will inspire countless kids to be excited about science and get into careers that will make the world better.
Big reserve in tundra in Northern Canada, Alaska, or Siberia. Fences and regular patrols. Population control could come from introducing predators (bears, wolves, and Siberian tigers might be able to take juvenile mammoths), or even limited hunting (perhaps only with stone-age gear, and an accompanying film crew for even more awesome and some funding).
Don’t know. Was it climate change? Human hunting? Something else?
Tundra vegetation, I presume. This plan relies on the assumption that the present Canadian/Alaskan/Siberian tundra could still support some small population of woolly mammoths. If that’s not true, it all falls apart, and we’d have to create a reserve more like a zoo in which they’re fed elephant food (or whatever). That would still be awesome, but probably more expensive and not as awesome as the original plan.
There’s a cost-benefit analysis here. First, the cost: bringing back extinct animals may have unforeseen consequences, especially with non-megafauna. Even with megafauna, are there disease implications? I’m ignorant on this subject, so mock me as appropriate–but I seem to remember reading somewhere that viruses will mutate differently in different host animals. De-extincting a species could possibly provide a host for a virus that would result in a form unfamiliar to modern species, with potentially devastating implications for one species or another (African elephants, American crows, human beings). And then there’s the sheer financial cost of de-extincting species.
That’s the potential cost side. On the benefit side, there’s “Oh HELL YEAH!”
I’m having trouble thinking of other potential benefits.
As strongly as the Oh Hell Yeah argument moves me (and I’m not kidding, the idea is AWESOME), it doesn’t weigh a whole lot against the costs.
I think it’s fundamentally unethical to do it for anything other than recent species we’ve made extinct ourselves.
There is no ecological gap for the older species, so they’re just being brought back as curiosities. And mostly because it’s possible. Meanwhile, we drive countless other contemporary species to extinction anyway. Our resources are way better spent preserving those than digging in the graveyard of evolutionary history. Let the dead stay dead.
The main question I would have for the revival of any species is can the method used to revive said species be kept secret and highly controlled? It does no good if a group of scientists establish strict protocols to keep any risks at an absolute minimum if a group of opportunists can use the same method to make a quick buck selling mammoth tusks, dodo feathers or eohippus house pets.
I don’t think you even need to consider ethics to conclude that this is a pretty bad idea. The risks (enumerated in countless books and film since the days of Mary Shelly) outweigh the benefits (mostly of the “it would be cool!” ilk) enough to brand the idea as ill-advised.
I think you are underestimating the inspiration that animal and plant life has given us as a species. Think about all of the art, music, and even literature inspired by animals. There are also benefits to science and technology to be gleamed by observation of diverse life in general (biomimetics). For example, velcro was famously inspired by plant burrs sticking to dog hair. The aviation industry has particularly benefited from study of birds and bats. Exposing ancient creatures to modern-day diseases also presents an opportunity for us to understand our own immune system. Examining how older species adapt to various stimuli can help understand a lot of the “why” questions in evolutionary biology, in a way that will never be as intuitive as the fossil record alone.
Neanderthals should be at the top of the list, because I don’t think there’s any other species that would be more awesome to bring back. Here’s an old discussion about that (one of my favorite threads that I started): Cloning a Neandertal - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Reviving a species like that brings in a whole new set of problems beyond what has already been brought up, the chief being Will they have human rights?. If so, then any attempt to control them will bring forth protests from around the globe, and by “control them” I mean where they are allowed to go, what they are allowed to do, and how large their population becomes.
And more seriously, someone is going to do this kind of thing eventually… better to do it under controlled and thoughtful conditions than at the whims of some future billionaire enthusiast with a private island.