Less than a year ago, a United States company, Colossal Biosciences, announced it had “resurrected” the dire wolf, a megafauna-hunting wolf species that had been extinct for 10,000 years.
Within two days of Colossal’s announcement, the Interior Secretary of the U.S., Doug Burgum, used the idea of resurrection to justify weakening environmental protection laws: “Pick your favorite species and call up Colossal.”
His reasoning appeared to confirm critics’ fears about de-extinction technology. If we can bring any species back, why protect them to begin with?
In a new study published in Biological Conservation, we put this idea to the test. We found no evidence that people will accept extinction more readily if they’re promised de-extinction. But it’s important to communicate about de-extinction efforts with care.
The ‘moral hazard’ of de-extinction
Since the emergence of de-extinction technology, critics have argued it potentially undermines support for conserving existing species.
In other words, de-extinction technology poses a “moral hazard.” This is a situation in which someone is willing to behave in riskier ways than they would otherwise, because someone or something else will bear the cost or deal with the consequences. Behaving recklessly because you have health insurance is a classic example.
…
Read the full article on Nspirement
Comments