The Problem With De-Extinction

The recent news about the delisting of the passenger pigeons from the Endangered Species Act has aroused many people to voice their strong support for keeping these species in their natural habitats. As these beautiful birds have been a part of our culture for centuries, one wonders how this act will affect the future of the beautiful woolly mammoth. Unfortunately, we cannot deny the fact that all living things on earth have been affected by man's destructive tendencies. While it is true that we have taken down many plants and animals to use as lumber, concrete and building material, the same cannot be said about the passenger pigeons. Once they have been stripped of their homeostasis, they do not recover and eventually die.

The reduction of the passenger pigeon from the Endangered Species List was a great step forward in preserving many threatened species. However, this is just the first of the steps that should be taken to save these beautiful birds. There are two ways to help reduce the extinction rate of these pigeons. First, there is a need to increase the production of milk for the winter. While there is some debate over whether or not female caribou in the Sibley et al. (eds) 2021 "raped milk" paper are really representative of a healthy bovine, the evidence remains undeniable that they are indeed vulnerable and endangered species.

Some environmentalists and enthusiasts disagree with the idea that de-extinction should be used to help stop the death of many birds. They argue that there is simply no way to return to the same population or biological condition once an animal becomes extinct. Nevertheless, David Palmer points out that in the case of the passenger pigeon, their decline was due to their own decline. It is likely that other oak species will experience a similar fate. For instance, the Brown Pelican has experienced a rapid decline and is now protected.

The second step that needs to be taken to bring back a certain species is simply to increase understanding. Just because an animal is gone does not mean that it no longer exists. We have known animals like mammoths and giant pandas for millions of years. Can we really say that the only living relative of that elephant is a mammoth? We also know that lions prey upon other big cats and that hawks hunt down even large birds.

It is impossible to say whether or not any of these animals have horns or tusks because all these were once part of a wide variety of passenger pigeons, which have become extinct. It is also hard to say whether or not any of these animals have eyes that are black or brown. While some large numbers of these animals have disappeared, we do know that many more are alive. David Palmer has argued persuasively that we should make it our goal to learn as much about these nocturnal animals as we can, just because the passenger pigeons used them as their transportation method.

The next step is to turn de-extinction into a business. If you really care about saving these animals, you have to take charge of this situation and make it work. You have to raise awareness among people so that they will help when de-extinction takes place. David Palmer has said that with the right organization, the effort to save the passenger pigeons from extinction can be led by ordinary people. He has created a foundation called "Stop the Pigeon Wars" in order to put a stop to the illegal killing of these beautiful creatures.

He explained why he believes that de-extinction should be carried out: "If you look into the history of conservation, you'll see that there has been a lot of failed projects over the years. Projects like the Pacific Northwest [reements] that tried to take away the rights of Native Americans to hunt mammoths. People say that this is wrong because mammoths are iconic. The problem is, these creatures are unique and have a rich history.

It would seem to me that with the correct organization this will not go wrong. If people really care about these animals, they will help put in place a system that will work. Whether it's the right system or the best one will depend on whether the people involved are committed to conserving the species in the first place. I personally believe that David Palmer did the right thing with his book. While I do not agree with his methods, I do acknowledge that he is an ethically conscious human being who cares deeply about preserving our environment.

Post a Comment