"Less than a year ago, 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 US, Doug Burgum, used the idea of resurrection to justify weakening environmental protection laws: "pick your favourite 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 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."
Colossal Biosciences announced a claimed resurrection of the dire wolf, prompting a US official to suggest de-extinction as justification for weakening protections. That reasoning echoed fears that de-extinction could reduce incentives to conserve species. No evidence indicates people will accept extinction more readily when promised future resurrection. De-extinction presents a moral hazard, where belief in rescue can encourage riskier behavior because others will bear consequences. Similar concerns arise around carbon capture and solar radiation modification. Clear, careful public communication about de-extinction efforts is necessary to avoid undermining conservation incentives.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]