TED Conversations

David Johnson

Remote Emergency Medical Responder, Eric Whitacre Virtual Choir

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Science is developing the tools towards de-extinction of species on the planet that have become extinct. The question becomes; Should we?

Stewart Brand and his colleagues are at the biotech precipice of reviving extinct species. The Revive and Restore project plans to not only bring species back but restore them to the wild, as well as protect currently endangered species.

I don't think any of us will have a problem with the latter, this discussion is focused on the primary goal; reintroduction of extinct species. We are not talking about dinosaurs here, but the Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, Heath Hen, European Aurochs, Bucardo, The Taz Tiger, etc.

Up for debate here: Should we?

Where we can all appreciate the science being developed, we must discuss the implications of initiating projects like this. I submit we need to discuss this on behalf of the existing species that we have, as well as for the animals that are lost.

Some questions to consider:

Do we value the argument that we should 'undo the harm' that humans have caused in the past, due to over-hunting or destruction of habitat? Should we rewrite or undo history?

Many of these species have not been in the natural environment for 100 years. It is fair to say that the natural predators or prey of these species, the plants or insect life they feed on, the environments they roam through ... have altered in their absence. Has the cycle of the earth, moved on without them?

We have a long history of experiencing what can happen when biodiversity is altered by introducing a species not indigenous to the area in question. Cane Toads in Australia, Grey Squirrel in Europe or the Gypsy Moth.

Is this project actually an introduction of a species back into an environment that may not be able to sustain it as it once did?

Even though we can grieve the lost of the Dodo, should we bring it back at all costs?

Or as Daniel Chan asks below;

how can we effectively simulate the effects of introducing pre-existing species to the environment before actually doing so?

What other Questions should we ask?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 15 2013: These are interesting comments. I feel the fear and worry is the most natural popular response. I hang out with alot of scientist,so as a group I have a pretty good picture of the intentions of this group.You may wonder,how can she know? Well its the same as when Im with lawyers,or my pretty goldigger girlfriends, I just listen to what they say they want,who they are going to impress,imtimidate,change,control. Scientists are not like a group of imperialists who seek power of others,or to control...none of their behaviour is similar to the priorities of all the other groups running game on humanity. They are truly the paramedics of the universe paving the way for us to no longer hurt,die or struggle. Your collective anxiety about,what they might do is more realistically turned towards our own government,then this heroic group. I cannot express in words my saddness about your responses to the offer of restoration. Yet,it is the truth,you are in fact afraid and I am concerned for us,because this comes from the heart. Science has been maligned for eons,so the collective is expressing the anxiety that was trust on them. However I may express a truism that each one of know at a personal level..that when you fix something that you broke,you also change yourself into one who saves,but if you engage in perpetrating in activities which end in harming others,you will eventually fall on your on sword.In closing scientists are not academics.do not confuse the two
    • thumb
      Mar 15 2013: Carolyn, you have bought up points very worthy of clarification.
      First to be clear, I have no ill thought towards Brand and his colleagues, or any scientist working towards betterment, improvement or extension of life itself. It is their job to continuously reach far ahead and wonder ... what if? Can we? and How do I? We will always hold a debt of gratitude to the work of science. If we lower the boom requiring them to consider every angle of ethical consideration regarding their work, they will not be able to reach ahead and find questions for themselves to answer. They would be tied down. No one wants that.

      It is not their responsibility to limit themselves by questions of ethics, unless a question is raised (in a forum like this) that science can answer. We want them to accurately interpret data when asked to balance a question like this, and have no opinion when their data does not hold the answer.

      Where I understand your use of the phrase collective fear or anxiety at what you read here, I wonder about your sadness about our responses to the de-extinction. Should we not discuss the consequences? Should we not consider that we have a choice to initiate this program? Should we give the scientists (whom you and I appreciate equally) carte blanche? As you said, they are not academics, and they should not be. Do we need an academic forum to take this responsibility from science and discuss this? I think we should.

      Having awareness and facilitating discussion does not equate fear. Clear understanding of potential consequences in this case means sifting through data, and making a decision based on scientific reality. Suggesting this be done, is not fear ... its just good science.
      Thank you for sharing.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.