Aesthetics at the Intersection of the Species Problem and De-Extinction Technology

Abstract

De-extinction technology aims to bring extinct species back into existence, often with the goal of releasing created organisms into natural environments. In this paper, I argue that there are aesthetic reasons to avoid engaging in de-extinction and release projects, even if they pass moral permissibility criteria. The strength of these reasons depends on conclusions regarding species authenticity – a problem that arises at the intersection of de-extinction technology and the ‘species problem’ in the philosophy of biology. Since species authenticity affects the perceived naturalness of ‘natural’ environments, and thus the aesthetic judgments thereof, I contend that there will be negative aesthetic consequences of de-extinction efforts that ought to be further explored before such projects move forward.

Keywords

Environmental aesthetics environmental philosophy philosophy of biology philosophy of technology de-extinction technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbey

1985. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Anderson

J.E.

1991. ‘A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness’. Conservation Biology 5 (3): 347–352. Crossref.

Beever

2017. ‘The ontology of species: Commentary on Kasperbauer's “Should we bring back the passenger pigeon? The ethics of de-extinction”’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 18–20. Crossref.

Berleant

2004. ‘The aesthetics of art and nature’. In Carlson

and Berleant

(eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 76–88. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press. Crossref.

Berman

M.G.

. 2014. ‘The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes’. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114572. Crossref.

Blockstein

D.E.

2017. ‘We can't bring back the passenger pigeon: The ethics of deception around de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 33–37. Crossref.

Boyd

1999. ‘Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa’. In Wilson

R.A.

, (ed.) Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, pp. 141–186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Boyd

2010. ‘Homeostasis, higher taxa, and monophyly’. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 686–701. Crossref.

Callicott

J.B.

1989. ‘Leopold's land aesthetic’. In Callicott

J.B.

, (ed.) In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, pp. 239–247. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

10.

Carlson

2004. ‘Appreciation and the natural environment’. In Carlson

and Berleant's

(eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 63–75. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

11.

Cohen

2014. ‘The ethics of de-extinction’. Nanoethics 8: 165–178.

12.

Cokinos

2000. Hope Is the Thing with Feathers: A Personal Chronicle of Vanished Birds. New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam. Crossref.

13.

de Queiroz

1998. ‘The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation’. In Howard

D.J.

and Berlocher

S.H.

(eds), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, pp. 57–75. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

de Queiroz

2007. ‘Species concepts and species delimitation’. Systematic Biology 56(6): 879–886. Crossref.

15.

Diehm

2017. ‘De-extinction and deep questions about species conservation’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 25–28. Crossref.

16.

Douglas

W.O.

1965. A Wilderness Bill of Rights. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

17.

Eaton

M.M.

2004. ‘Fact and fiction in the aesthetic appreciation of nature’. In Carlson

and Berleant

(eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 170–181. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

18.

Ereshefsky

1998. ‘Species pluralism and anti-realism’. Philosophy of Science 65(1): 103–120. Crossref.

19.

Ereshefsky

2017. ‘Species’. In Zalta

E.N.

, (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/species/ (accessed 22 March 2019).

20.

Fisher

J.A.

2004. ‘What the hills are alive with: In defense of the sounds of nature’. In Carlson

and Berleant

(eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 232–252. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

21.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).

22.

Haught

2017. ‘Integral value and the virtue of hospitality: A response to Kasperbauer’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 29–32. Crossref.

23.

Hoyle

, Jorgensen

and Hitchmough

J.D.

. 2019. ‘What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces’. People and Nature 1: 267–180. Crossref.

24.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

25.

Junge

, Hunziker

, Bauer

, Arnberger

and Olschewski

. 2019. ‘Invasive alien species in Switzerland: Awareness and preferences of experts and the public’. Environmental Management 63: 90–93. Crossref.

26.

Kaplan

1987. ‘Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective’. Environment and Behavior 19(1): 3–32. Crossref.

27.

Kaplan

and Kaplan

. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Kasperbauer

T.J.

2017. ‘Should we bring back the passenger pigeon? The ethics of de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 1–14. Crossref.

29.

Kotchen

M.J.

and Reiling

S.D.

. 2000. ‘Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species’. Ecological Economics 32: 93–107. Crossref.

30.

Lamb

R.J.

and Purcell

A.T.

. 1990. ‘Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure’. Landscape and Urban Planning 19: 333–352. Crossref.

31.

Leopold

and Finch

1992. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Liu

, Zhang

, Lin

, You

, Zhang

, Huang

, Konijnendijk van den Bosch

C.C.

and Lan

. 2018. ‘The relationship between self-rated naturalness of university green space and students' restoration and health’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 259–268. Crossref.

33.

Machado

2004. ‘An index of naturalness’. Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 95–110. Crossref.

34.

Margules

and Usher

M.B.

, 1981. ‘Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review’. Biological Conservation 21: 79–109. Crossref.

35.

Moore

G.E.

and Baldwin

. 1993. Principia Ethica, Revised Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Moore

2004. ‘Appreciating natural beauty as natural’. In Carlson

and Berleant

(eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 214–231. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

37.

Nash

R.F.

1967. Wilderness and the American Mind (Fifth Edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

38.

National Geographic (n.d.). ‘Axolotl’. National Geographic. Online at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/amphibians/a/axolotl/ (accessed 10 March 2019).

39.

Norton

B.G.

1991. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

40.

Ode

Å.

, Fry

, Tveit

M.S.

, Messager

and Miller

. 2009. ‘Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference’. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 375–383. Crossref.

41.

Ohta

2001. ‘A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(4): 387–403. Crossref.

42.

Pokagon

1907. ‘The wild pigeon in North America’. In Mershon

W.B.

, (ed.) The Passenger Pigeon, pp. 48–59. Deposit, NY: The Outing Press.

43.

Revive & Restore . (n.d.). Woolly Mammoth Revival. Online at: http://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/ (accessed 6 May 2017).

44.

Rohwer

and Marris

. 2018. ‘An analysis of potential ethical justifications for mammoth de-extinction and a call for empirical research’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 21(1): 127–142. Crossref.

45.

Rolston

III

2001. ‘Natural and unnatural; Wild and cultural’. Western North American Naturalist 61(3): 267–276.

46.

Russow

1981. ‘Why do species matter?’ Environmental Ethics 3(2): 101–112.

47.

Shapiro

2015. How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

48.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

49.

Siipi

2008. ‘Dimensions of naturalness’. Ethics and The Environment 13(1): 71–103. Crossref.

50.

Siipi

2014. ‘The authenticity of animals’. In Siipi

and Oksanen

(eds), The Ethics of Animal Re-creation and Modification: Reviving, Rewilding, Restoring, pp. 77–96. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.

51.

Siipi

and Finkelman

. 2016. ‘The extinction and de-extinction of species’. Philosophy & Technology 30(4): 427–441 Crossref.

52.

Simonic

2003. ‘Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes’. Zbornik Biotehniške Fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Kmetijstvo. Zootehnika 81: 369–387.

53.

Slater

M.H.

and Clatterbuck

. 2018. ‘A pragmatic approach to the possibility of de-extinction’. Biology & Philosophy 33(4): 1–21. Crossref.

54.

Smith

I.A.

2017. ‘De-extinction and the flourishing of species’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 38–40. Crossref.

55.

Smith

P.L.

, Goodmon

L.B.

and Hester

. 2018. ‘The Burtynsky effect: Aesthetic reactions to landscape photographs that vary in natural features’. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 12(1): 34–49. Crossref.

56.

Stanford

P.K.

1995. ‘For pluralism and against realism about species’. Philosophy of Science 62(1): 70–91. Crossref.

57.

Sterelny

and Griffiths

P.E.

. 1999. Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

58.

Turner

D.D.

2014. ‘The restorationist argument for extinction reversal’. In Siipi

and Oksanen

(eds), The Ethics of Animal Re-creation and Modification: Reviving, Rewilding, Restoring, pp. 40–59. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.

59.

Turner

D.D.

2017. ‘Biases in the selection of candidate species for de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 20(1): 21–24. Crossref.

60.

United States of America. 1964. The Wilderness Act: An Act to Establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the Permanent Good of the Whole People, and for Other Purposes. 88th Congress, Second Session. Online at: https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/The_Wilderness_Act.pdf (accessed 20 February 2020).