Reintroduction of Extinct Species
By: Karanbir Dhanki
1044360

Point #2: Reestablishing lost value/creating new value

Support
Species possess many different types of value: ecological value to the systems in which they are located (e.g., performing ecosystem functions); instrumental values to people (e.g., providing ecosystem services); and intrinsic value (or final value) in themselves or for what they are (e.g., as distinctive forms of life) [10].

Support
By restoring these species we can restore the value that we lost from the world, and not just for humans but for other animals in the ecosystem. Based on their old skills new values can be created and studied[10].

Point #1: Justice for extinct animals.

Support
Many species have gone extinct due to anthropological causes such as hunting or habitat destruction. If we as humans can do this to these species being able to revive these species could serve them justice[10].

Support
The motivation behind this idea is that humanity has done something terribly wrong causing many species to go extinct. By making up for our wrongs we can actually acknowledge our role but also try to create change for the future, so these events do not happen again. This is a reparation and rehabilitation approach for righting our wrongs instead of a restorative or restitutive approach[10].

Point #3: Genetic diversity and Evolutionary resilience

Support
New genomic editing techniques should be able to restore heterozygosity pretty easily in living genomes. There are some documented cases of populations that have persisted over long periods of time ay extremely small population sizes prior to recovery[8].

Support
The science of conservation translocation provides concepts and tools (i) to minimize the loss of genetic variation of captive populations before release into the wild and (ii) to maximize post-release survival and population growth through optimal release methods and through continuing and adaptive management[8]

Although many people have debated over this topic
there are many benefits to reintroducing extinct species without violating ethical boundaries.

Literature Cited
[1] Bax, N., Barrett, N. S., Hobday, A. J., & Casper, R. M. (2013). Preadapting a Tasmanian coastal ecosystem to ongoing climate change through reintroduction of a locally extinct species.


[2] Bennett, J. R., Maloney, R. F., Steeves, T. E., Brazill-Boast, J., Possingham, H. P., & Seddon, P. J. (2017). Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(4), 1-4.



[3] Corlett, R. T. (2016). Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends in ecology & evolution, 31(6), 453-462.



[4] Drayton, B., & Primack, R. B. (2000). Rates of success in the reintroduction by four methods of several perennial plant species in eastern Massachusetts. Rhodora, 299-331.



[5] Jørgensen, D. (2013). Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience, 63(9), 719-720.



[6] Maunder, M. (1992). Plant reintroduction: an overview. Biodiversity & Conservation, 1(1), 51-61.



[7] Robert, A., Colas, B., Guigon, I., Kerbiriou, C., Mihoub, J. B., Saint‐Jalme, M., & Sarrazin, F. (2015). Defining reintroduction success using IUCN criteria for threatened species: a demographic assessment. Animal Conservation, 18(5), 397-406.



[8] Robert, A., Thévenin, C., Princé, K., Sarrazin, F., & Clavel, J. (2017). De‐extinction and evolution. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 1021-1031.



[9] Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354-360.



[10] Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A., & Ewen, J. (2014). Reintroducing resurrected species: selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(3), 140-147.

Through growing technology it has been found
that reintroduction of species that have been
extinct for several decades is plausible. By reintroducing extinct species into the ecosystem justice can be served for our previous actions, new values can be reestablished and there could be a increase in genetic diversity and evolutionary resilience.

Point #1:Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss.

Support
Public funding for conservation of resurrected species would lead to fewer extant species that could be conserved, suggesting net biodiversity loss. Even if it was publicly funded there could be substantial sacrifices in extant species conservation. Instead of focusing on species that have already gone extinct we should focus on how to help endangered species, so they do not go extinct [2].

Refute
If conservation of resurrected species populations could be fully externally sponsored, there could be benefits to extant threatened species. Moreover, there are many things the government funds so why not fund both things which would be beneficial or overall species diversity, helping endangered species and restoring extinct species. Both of these species have been endangered because of human actions so why can we not spend all of our resources to right our wrongs?

Point#2: Human acceptance will be a crucial aspect to consider for de-extinction.

Support
Reintroducing brooding frogs, which died out only in the 1980s, will not be argued, because of their recent extinction history. Reintroducing the thylacine, which was hunted to extinction by the 1930s, may prove unproblematic from a species-history standpoint, although it may be rejected by locals because the species is similar to wolf reintroduction plans in North America and Europe. The woolly mammoth, however, will likely invoke a huge opposition based on the thousands of years it has been absent from Earth[5].

Refute:
In spite of these conflicts, reintroduction is an appropriate label, regardless of the length of time the species has been absent. By framing de-extinction as a new kind of reintroduction project, rather than as something entirely novel, a wealth of prior experiences and established guidelines can be created[5]

Point#3: Reintroduction of extinct species is unnatural and unethical.

Support
The viability of the unnaturalness objection to transgenic biotechnology (including deep de-extinction) depends upon species boundaries having ethical significance, such that creating transgenics somehow violates them. Many people would argue that engineered organisms do not have as much natural value as do organisms whose origins are independent from humans[10]

Refute
Species delineations are not always clear, and interspecific genetic hybridization is common in nature. Therefore, the mere existence of transgenic organisms is neither unusual nor ethically problematic. It is now routinely done and accepted in biomedical contexts as well[10].