If you’re like me, you cringe a bit every time you hear that a particular animal has become endangered or is on the brink of extinction, especially when such extinction or endangerment is the result of human activity. Fortunately, science may soon be able to recreate species that mankind has previously eliminated. If the technology necessary to revive extinct species becomes reality, scientists should not hesitate to use it, as doing so would rectify some of mankind’s most detrimental impacts on the natural world.
Scientists in Australia recently stated that they were able to recreate an embryo from a species of extinct frog. The scientists hope that the embryo, once it is inserted into a genetically similar species of frog, will grow into a functioning organism. The recreation of extinct species — dubbed de-extinction — will not be limited to frogs, either. By implanting extinct animals’ embryos into surrogates, scientists hope to recreate many more organisms. Harvard scientists, for example, are looking at ways to bring back the passenger pigeon.
Extinction is an integral part of nature. In fact, 99.9 percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Most of these extinctions have been the result of random or natural occurrences. For scientists to try to bring back huge numbers of animals, then, would be foolish, as it would be impossible to recreate a significant percentage of the species that have already vanished. Nevertheless, mankind has resulted in the extinction of several well-known species as recently as the last 60 years. If a recently extinct animal that was eradicated through overhunting or habitat destruction can be brought back, scientists should ensure its resurrection. Just because people in past centuries did not share the conservationist attitude that prevails today does not mean that we should be deprived of biodiversity. That being said, recreating extinct animals will result in a few arguments.
There will surely be much debate about which animals deserve to be recreated. Scientists have compiled a list of around 24 animals that they hope to one day bring back. Most of those are species of birds that humans overhunted. Scientists selected some of target animals, however, because they are very recognizable. Wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers are among scientists’ top priorities. What, then, determines whether a particular species will be resurrected? Although I love the idea of seeing a saber-toothed tiger in the flesh, it makes sense to initially focus on bringing back species that were the most directly eliminated by human activity. Humans, for instance, hunted the dodo bird to extinction and were thus the primary reason it vanished. The same cannot be said for the saber-toothed tiger, which is believed to have died out as a result of a climate change. Species that humans needlessly destroyed should be given priority when it comes to recreation.
Ethics plays an important role in this discussion. Some people will characterize the resurrection of extinct species in the same negative way as cloning. Those people will likely condemn species recreation as humans playing God. Such an argument is weak at best. It would appear that humans acted equally godlike in eliminating species as they would in recreating species. Thoughtlessly driving a species to extinction is a much worse transgression than using available technology to rectify that mistake. If our scientific advancements allow us to play God to fix past errors, there is nothing wrong with doing so.
If, however, a species is no longer able to survive in its natural habitat for some reason, scientists should not waste money trying to sustain it. Similarly, just because we may be able to recreate extinct animals does not mean that less effort should be placed on conservation and preventing extinctions. Given the choice between maintaining a resurrected species and preventing the extinction of a present-day species, more resources should be put towards maintaining populations of animals that have never gone extinct. Otherwise, more money will ultimately need to be put toward reintroducing yet another species which will be very expensive and time-consuming.
The science to successfully resurrect entire extinct species has not yet been fully discovered, yet it is hard to not be optimistic about its future applications. It is no secret that conservation of wildlife was not a main priority in the past. It is exciting that we may soon be able to rectify some of the natural destruction caused by our predecessors.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. Contact him at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 8 hours agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 3 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
