Would You Rather Have Elephants Or Woolly Mammoths? Some Scientists Say We Can't Have Both...
Would You Rather Have Elephants Or Woolly Mammoths? Some Scientists Say We Can't Have Both...
While some scientists are excited about the possibilities of de-extinction, many others are concerned that the same amount of money it would take to reintroduce one extinct species to the world could mean having to give up conservation efforts for as many as eight others. Which would you rather have?
While some scientists are excited about the possibilities of de-extinction, many others are concerned that the same amount of money it would take to reintroduce one extinct species to the world could mean having to give up conservation efforts for as many as eight others. Which would you rather have?
Many scientists are excited about the prospect of de-extinction, particularly one organization, San Francisco-based Revive & Restore, which is currently raising funds for the de-extinction of three animals: the passenger pigeon, heath hen, and woolly mammoth. According to the organization's lead researcher and scientific consultant, Ben Novak, these three animals could be helpful if reintroduced to their natural habitats.
Any de-extinction effort must have long-term benefits that outweigh the costs.
Ben Novak
New York Times, March 20, 2017
But there are other scientists who aren't so sure that the benefits would outweigh the costs and estimate that with the amount of money it would take to de-extinct one species, three to eight others could be saved from the brink of extinction now. According to a study led by Dr. Joseph Bennett of Carleton University in Ontario, Canada, the costs of de-extinction would be much better put to use saving animals that are still alive.
If you have the millions of dollars it would take to resurrect a species and choose to do that, you are making an ethical decision to bring one species back and let several others go extinct.
Dr. Joseph Bennett
New York Times, March 20, 2017
However, Revive & Restore's co-founder, Stewart Brand, points out that the species Bennett used in his study do not contribute to conservation in the same way that the species his organization hopes to de-extinct would and that a focus on resurrecting species which would have significant positive impact on their environments would not spell out certain destruction for other living species as surely as Bennett proposes. Brand points primarily to the passenger pigeon, which could help regenerate forests.
Stuffed passenger pigeon
However, Dr. Bennett leaves us with one final caution.
If [a] person is couching de-extinction in terms of conservation, then she or he needs to have a very sober look at what one could do with those millions of dollars with living species...
Dr. Joseph Bennett
New York Times, March 20, 2017
But now, what we'd like to know is...
If you had to choose between resurrecting the woolly mammoth and letting elephants go extinct, which would you choose?
If you had to choose between resurrecting the woolly mammoth and letting elephants go extinct, which would you choose?