Reclaiming Hope in Extinction Storytelling

Abstract

Critics often take conservationists to task for delivering a constant barrage of bad news without offering a compelling vision of the future. Could recent advances in synthetic biology—an optimistic, forward‐looking field with a can‐do attitude—let conservationists develop a new vision and generate some better news? Synthetic biology and related gene‐editing applications could be used to address threats to species. Genetic interventions might also be used in plants to better protect biodiversity in U.S. rangelands and forests. One possibility has stood out in its ability to capture media attention and the public imagination—recreating extinct species. And perhaps a de‐extinction story could counter the seemingly relentless negativity in biodiversity talk. De‐extinction proponent Stewart Brand writes that resurrecting species could shift the “conservation story … from negative to positive, from constant whining and guilt‐tripping to high fives and new excitement.” So, why do many people in conservation oppose the de‐extinction narrative? This essay is an inquiry into whether there are intrinsic social reactions to these types of conservation solutions that might offset their potential benefits. If genetic tools are to be applied to address conservation issues in a realistic and responsible way, their broader social‐cultural implications deserve far more attention than they have so far received.

De-Extinction

“…De-extinction dialogue represents a diversity of voices: from ethical philosophers, environmental lawyers and historians to population geneticists and biotechnologists. Peer-reviewed literature is almost evenly split between papers whose lead author is a social scientist or philosopher [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 65 , 69 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 ] and those whose lead author is a biological or environmental scientist [ 23 , 26 , 53 , 66 , 71 , 72 , 75 , 141 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , ...…”

“…It is worth noting that divergent de-extinction definitions are more often, understandably, found in publications authored by social scientists and philosophers, typically trained to consider more abstract and varying components of a subject than biologists. Of publications authored by social scientists and philosophers, over half outline de-extinction stances widely differing from the IUCN definition [ 21 , 22 , 73 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 163 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 174 , 176 , 198 , 199 ], as opposed to less than a quarter of biologist lead papers [ 53 , 180 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 ]. If one re-evaluates all of the literature in light of the revised de-extinction definition provided here, then most other publications present definitions of de-extinction largely incongruent with actual practice [ 23 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 157 , 158 , 160 , 161 , 166 , 179 , 181 , 182 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 ], though authors’ departures to more abstract de-extinction concepts are building important philosophical ramifications for conservation science and the relationships of humans and non-human species.…”

“…Of the literature published to date, less than 10% is based upon any modelled or collected data [ 53 , 141 , 184 , 185 , 200 ] and only half root their arguments and discussions in relevant empirical or substantiated established intellectual content [ 19 , 23 , 25 , 53 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 141 , 155 , 157 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 180 , 182 , 183 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 201 , 202 ]. The remaining publications present many debates and perspectives within a “hyperbolic echo chamber” of de-extinction concerns without drawing from examples of reintroduction biology, animal welfare ethics, or other pertinent established fields of literature and science [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 69 , 73 , 154 , 158 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 174...…”

De‐scenting Extinction: The Promise of De‐extinction May Hasten Continuing Extinctions

“…No moral judgment applies to dinosaur extinctions, but the passenger pigeon extinctions, caused by humans, warrant a judgment. It is a mark of confusion and there is a loss of crucial information, argued Wittgenstein, when we have just one word for a variety of phenomena . The current sixth extinction seems more accurately described as a “super‐killing,” whether done intentionally or through willful negligence…”