I applaud the scientific and technological insights and ingenuity of genetic manipulation that may make it possible in the not-too-distant future to bring into existence members of species that are now extinct. Who wouldn’t want to see passenger pigeons or wooly mammoths alive and propagating? We could atone for the guilt of our ancestors who drove these species to extinction while reaping the benefits of their coexistence.
However, I doubt the ability of scientists to control the use of this technology and thereby avert untoward outcomes. Consider the atom bomb. Many of its creators were opposed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they couldn’t stop it even though major military officials, including Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower, agreed that it was unnecessary. Consider ARPANET, which was designed originally to facilitate communication among scientists. The Internet it engendered is now used largely for retail sales, fraud, and pornography.
Negative consequences related to environmental protection are overwhelmingly probable if de-extinction becomes a reality. Like those who created the atom bomb, the creators of de-extinction will be powerless to intervene.
De-extinction will re-emphasize an unfortunate aspect of our current law which is intended to prevent species extinction. That unfortunate aspect is the concentration on individual species. Conservation biologists point out that we need to preserve entire ecosystems as habitat for a whole range of species, not just individual species of charismatic animals, such as eagles and wolves, if conservation is to succeed. De-extinction technology could lead us in the opposite direction. Why preserve whole ecosystems if the animals of public interest that may become extinct through habitat destruction can eventually be resuscitated and live in zoos?
De-extinction will likely also engender what I call “convenient theories” which will ultimately lead to additional habitat destruction and ultimately to reduced biodiversity. Convenient theories enable people to assuage their conscience so as to permit them to continue ignoring important problems. In the 1950s, my mother told me not to worry about poverty among Native Americans because members of the Mohawk Nation made very good money in the construction of New York City sky scrapers. Taking the exception to be the rule assuaged her conscience. Similarly, today many white Americans use the example of some African Americans rising from poverty to riches to adopt the convenient theory that poverty and racism are no longer significant in our society.
Convenient theories are often fostered by commercial interests. The tobacco industry took pains to cast enough doubt in the minds of many smokers concerning the health-impairing impact of smoking that many people already addicted to cigarettes adopted the convenient theory that the matter is subject to legitimate scientific debate. People could smoke with a clear conscience, if not with clear lungs. Similar stories are told about climate change, the proliferation of guns, and the concentration of wealth, to name but a few. In each case, a corporate campaign has convinced the public that they can ignore a problem in good conscience. As a result, Congress has been reluctant to address these issues as the facts would warrant.
As I envision it, corporate interests will use the possibility of compensating for species loss through de-extinction to convince the public and Congress that habitat-destroying corporate activities (clear-cutting forests, proliferating chemical pollution, etc.) are no big deal. Any species that is driven to extinction can be brought back to life.
But will Americans be fooled into accepting species extinction with a good conscience when they’ve been promised species re-creation through de-extinction? I think so. The Endangered Species Act, flawed as it is for its excessive concentration on individual species, is currently a formidable obstacle to habitat destruction. Once de-extinction becomes a reality, corporate interests will point out that extinction is no longer permanent; that technology has now made the Endangered Species Act obsolete because extinction is now reversible; that development which destroys the habitat of a currently endangered species will spur so much economic growth as to enable society to afford the process of de-extinction, so no harm is done in the long run.
In sum, they’ll mount major public relations campaigns to convince the public of the convenient theory that extinction no longer matters. Public indifference to species preservation will enable corporate interests to convince many Americans that the Endangered Species Act should be re-written or repealed to permit development that endangers the critical habitat of endangered species. People will accept such corporate assurances because it is a convenient theory for them, as they look forward with a clean conscience to the benefits of increased economic growth. The overall effect of de-extinction will therefore be a great deal of eco-systemic degradation, habitat destruction, and species loss that is not rectified by compensating applications of an expensive technology.
Comments