Bringing back extinct species might not be a sound idea at all

Year 12, Taieri College

WE all know humans aren’t very nice when it comes to taking care of things other than themselves.

Our environment, our oceans, and our bedrooms — we have polluted them all.

We all know nobody wants this and that everyone would want to possess a clean Earth with none of these critical issues.

So what if it could be reversed? Well, in one area of our destruction, it is now possible. But should we do it?

Should we bring extinct animals back to life?

It would be amazing to see all these creatures previously wiped from the Earth, brought back into it.

Most of the recently extinct species have been driven into extinction by humans.

Through our use of the planet, with deforestation and pollution, we destroy many of these species’ habitats, which causes a staggering amount of them to disappear.

By bringing them back, we would be the morally upright species, showing mercy to others.

In the past, it was never a reality, so we dreamed about the positive consequences — until recent years.

In March 2000, the Pyrenean Ibex goat became extinct after the last one was killed by a falling tree.

The species had been poached for its long horns.

But in 2003, its genes were taken, and a clone was made.

It lived for about 7 minutes before dying of lung failure. But very briefly, the species had become unextinct.

Deextinction was now a reality, and scientists genuinely had to take the issue seriously.

This means we have to abandon the idea that we would deextinct the mammoth or the dodo, so we could go and see them in the zoo.

Bringing back a species should not be for our own enjoyment. That’s typically what made them extinct in the first place.

Instead, biologists say they should be brought back to fulfil an ecological function, as a way to help our environment.

For example, fish clean algae from our seas and spiders keep insects populations at bay.

The trick is going to be bringing back the species which can fulfil the most functions in an environment, in an attempt to resolve it as much as possible.

So while most of us would want a mammoth back, it would likely be some sort of insect.

However, there is one notable species that scientists are debating bringing back — the passenger pigeon.

At the start of the 20th century, there were 5 billion passenger pigeons alive, all in North America, and they served a massive function, which was to spread plant seeds.

They managed, with their combined 120,000 tonnes of daily bird droppings, to spread all kinds of plants across North America, helping forests grow and ecosystems thrive.

After 14 years of severe hunting, the final one died in Cincinnati Zoo.

Since then, forest sizes have decreased, and even forests untouched by humans have shrunk 50% in the past 100 years.

Surely we would be justified in bringing this animal back. Maybe, we shouldn’t though. Anyone who has seen

Jurassic Park movies knows, maybe we shouldn’t mess with life, because it can get out of control very easily.

We may think a Tyrannosaurus Rex could cause the most damage, but smaller animals will breed far faster and we’ll be forced to stop monitoring them.

If we follow our example and bring back the passenger pigeon, what if a scientist makes a mistake, creating a mutated gene that could spread to our species and cause major issues, even possibly affecting our crops?

Some unknown factor, like bacteria unknown to these longgone species, could kill them all off again.

And maybe they wouldn’t be welcomed back to our different world either.

Passenger pigeons were famous for ruining acres of farmland when swarms flew across The Americas, maybe we wouldn’t truly want them back

This is the case with the poisonous cane toad which was removed from Australia, only to be reintroduced later to fix environmental issues.

Before the Australian Government knew it, they had invaded an extra million square kilometres, killing many plants and animals with their poison.

Money is also a weighty issue. It will cost massive amounts of money to bring back a species.

It has been estimated the cost of bringing back one species is about the same amount needed to keep eight struggling species alive.

I think the biggest issue that deextinction would create, is people wouldn’t care they are destroying ecosystems of animals anymore, because nothing would be permanent, which would make us cause more harm.

This could cause significant repercussions on all life around us as we become a more dangerous species to others.

An expert says the whole situation is ‘‘ethically messy, ecologically awkward, and also really expensive’’.

Which begs the question, is it worth it?