Words: Natalia Nowak (she/her)
It is impossible to manipulate nature and retain its autonomy. We are not restoring the biological world by de-extinction, we are making it artificial.
The concept of bringing back the dead, creating life outside of nature’s cycle, has been toyed with by scientists and writers for centuries. Take Frankenstein or Jurassic Park. Recently, the media was overwhelmed with the return of the dire wolf, brought back from the dead by researchers at Colossal Biosciences company, using genetic engineering and ancient DNA. Millions of dollars later they proclaimed that the dire wolf was ‘de-extinct’, having produced 3 puppies. Suddenly, extinction was not forever. Not permanent. We are absolved. By definition however, this is not exactly correct. These puppies are simply 3 genetically modified grey wolves, the dire wolf’s closest living ancestor. It’s as if you added a couple human genes to a chimp. Doesn’t necessarily make it a human, does it? The subject of de-extinction is one ridden with philosophical and environmental debate, rightfully so. Playing God, as many would call this, will always be contended, and there has been global outrage at this ‘return’ of the dire wolf for a variety of reasons. But why?
Extinction, at a natural level is completely normal. Everything living must die. 99% of all species that have ever walked our Earth have gone extinct, and what we see now is that 1% that has evolved onwards. What is concerning about the current extinction we are seeing is the scale and speed of it, equivalent to the 5 mass extinctions our planet has seen. Before, mass extinctions were caused by rising sea levels, volcanic activity, meteorites. Uncontrollable factors. But this time, the cause is biotic. A population of naked apes to be exact. And as a result, up to half of all current species are predicted to be extinct by 2050. Natural extinction is in line with transformation, changing both the extinct lineage and competing ones. Artificial extinction, as caused by humans, is a dead end. Humanity doesn’t generate or regenerate anything. We snip these lines short. The extinction we are causing cuts the tree of evolution down; instead of letting it grow in new directions. Thus, under the theory of restorative justice, de-extinction makes sense. In fact, it is demanded. To be blunt, this is the equivalent of spitting on the house fire that is biodiversity loss. A publicity stunt to boost humanity’s ego, to quell our quiet shame.
De-extinction is not a solution to large scale biodiversity loss. It cost millions of dollars to the company to bring back 3 specimens. Think of what that money could’ve done when put towards conservation work, how many species, genomes, and ancient lineages could’ve been saved in their original form for the price of one? Nevermind animals but entire ecosystems. While the cost may go down with scale, it remains impractical. Without solving the reason why they went extinct in the first place, is there any point in bringing them back? In recent decades, habitats have been pushed beyond most species survival ranges by global warming. There won’t be anywhere for the ‘dire wolf’ puppies to live naturally as their ancestors did. That era has long flown by. Just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean you should.
There is value in having another tool in our toolkit, but this is not the end of mass extinction. Moving away from anthropocentrism, if nature is inherently and intrinsically valuable, this value denotes autonomy from human purpose. We as humans cannot reproduce this value since all our restoration is artificial, the exact antonym of natural. By trying to recreate nature for humanity’s purpose, whether it be for practical or moral reasons, we disrupt the natural order that gives value to whatever we are copying. It is impossible to manipulate nature and retain its autonomy. We are not restoring the biological world by de-extinction, we are making it artificial. Ethically, that is an incredibly tough pill to swallow.
To make clear, de-extinction by its very essence is a bad gamble. It diverts critical resources from existing conservation efforts, creates unpredictable risks to the natural world, and practically condones further loss of biodiversity. What the company that genetically modified those wolves did was at best ‘cool’. Impressive to an extent. At worst, it was an incredible waste of money for a half-baked what-if. If we don’t have extinction, how are we to actually understand the gravity of our actions that is causing it in the first place. This may be disguised as a saving grace, a sigh of relief that we can keep going as we are. If we lose a species, we can just bring it back. Death and destruction is an apparent illusion. Don’t be fooled. Extinction remains permanent, and we are causing it now. Change, not deflection, is what will save us from annihilation.
References
The Ethics of De-Extinction | NanoEthics
Why Wake the Dead? Identity and De-extinction | Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
Why is it a bad idea to bring back extinct animals? – The Environmental Literacy Council
Ethical Arguments For and Against De-extinction | SpringerLink
To de-extinct or not to de-extinct? – The Official PLOS Blog
Philosophy and ethics of de-extinction – PMC
The Return of the Dire Wolf | TIME
Experts dispute Colossal claim dire wolf back from extinction – BBC News
How Colossal Biosciences’ Dire Wolf De-Extinction Advances Conservation Science
