Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

De-extinction as Artificial Species Selection

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper offers a paleobiological perspective on the debate concerning the possible use of biotechnology to bring back extinct species. One lesson from paleobiology is that extinction selectivity matters in addition to extinction rates and extinction magnitude. Combining some of Darwin’s insights about artificial selection with the theory of species selection that paleobiologists developed in the 1970s and 1980s provides a useful context for thinking about de-extinction. Using recent work on the prioritization of candidate species for de-extinction as a test case, the paper argues that de-extinction would be a form of artificial species selection in which humans influence which species persist vs. go extinct. This points to a serious gap in our ethical theory: Much work has been done to clarify the value(s) of biological diversity, but we also need theoretical guidance for decisions that amount to species sorting, and that will shape the macroevolutionary future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sepkoski (2012) provides a useful context for understanding the emergence of the theory of species selection during what might be called a revolutionary episode in paleontology.

  2. For introduction to the ethical issues, see Sherkow and Greely (2013), Cohen (2014), or Sandler (2014), as well as the papers collected in Oksanen and Siipi (2014).

  3. For a start, see Norton (1987), Sarkar (2005), and MacLaurin and Sterelny (2008). Oksanen (2014) develops the connection between this literature and de-extinction.

  4. See Nicholls (2008) and Shapiro (2015) for excellent discussions of the science.

  5. Siipi (2014) explores the role that our intuitions about authenticity might play here.

  6. For a more skeptical perspective on Pleistocene overkill, see Grayson and Meltzer (2003), as well as Wolverton (2010).

  7. For convenience, I am loosely equating biodiversity loss with species loss. However, most scientists and philosophers would agree that species richness is just one component of biodiversity. For a clear and wide-ranging discussion of the meaning of “biodiversity,” see MacLaurin and Sterelny (2008).

  8. Turner (2011, Chapters 3 and 4) provides a more detailed introduction to the debate about species selection. Jablonski (2008) reviews the scientific literature on species selection. See also Grantham (2002).

  9. This way of thinking about macroevolution derives from the work of the MBL group in the early 1970s (Raup et al. 1973). They developed one of the first computer simulations of macroevolution, and their simulation, known as the MBL model, treated it as an unbiased process.

  10. See, for example, Gould (1993). And in the context of his discussion of contingency, Gould (1989, p. 48) writes that “perhaps the grim reaper of anatomical designs is only Lady Luck in disguise.” Turner (2010) argues that the stochasticity of macroevolutionary sorting processes is part of what Gould meant by “contingency.”

  11. This idea that body size increases extinction risk has a long history in paleontology. It’s closely related to the “Lilliput effect,” which is an observable pattern in the fossil record (Harries and Knorr 2009). The fauna that show up in the fossil record after mass extinction events tend to have smaller body sizes than those that lived just prior to the mass extinction.

  12. Lloyd and Gould (1993) defend a version of this emergent fitness view. For an early version, see Arnold and Fristrup (1982). Okasha (2006, pp. 207–208) similarly sets a fairly low bar for species selection. For a nice characterization of the emergent fitness view, see also Gould (2002, p. 241).

  13. Elizabeth Vrba (1983, 1984) has been a leading defender of the emergent character approach. See also Vrba and Gould (1989). Gould (2002, pp. 656ff.) has a helpful discussion of both approaches, but he ultimately sides with the more permissive emergent fitness view.

  14. One major challenge for this view is to clarify the relevant sense of “emergence” (Grantham 1995, 2007).

  15. Sterrett (2002) argues that the two types of artificial selection in Darwin’s work—methodical vs. unconscious—closely parallel his distinction between natural selection based on the principle of divergence vs. the principle of extinction. In her view, the analogy between artificial and natural selection has more structure than many realize. This is a plausible reading of Darwin. I’d argue that it’s also important that all natural selection is unconscious, so that in pointing out that some artificial selection is unconscious, Darwin is eroding the difference between the two.

  16. Information about the Guinea worm eradication program is available from the Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/guineaworm/gwep.html, retrieved 17 August 2015.

  17. This issue of intent might matter for ethical reasons, even if we don’t think intent is necessary for selection to be artificial. As one anonymous referee pointed out, there could be cases where people foresee that their activities will increase the risk of extinction, but do not intend for the extinction to happen. In such cases, the principle of double effect might apply.

References

  • Arnold, A. J., & Fristrup, K. (1982). The theory of evolution by natural selection: a hierarchical expansion. Paleobiology, 8, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnosky, A. D., et al. (2011). Has the earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, S. (2015). Rethinking extinction. Aeon. Available at http://aeon.co/magazine/science/why-extinction-is-not-the-problem/. Retrieved 1 August 2015.

  • Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R.M., & T.M. Palmer (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5). Available online at http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/5/e1400253.full.pdf. Retrieved 2 August 2015.

  • Cohen, S. (2014). The ethics of de-extinction. Nanoethics, 8, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delord, J. (2007). The nature of extinction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 656–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delord, J. (2014). Can we really recreate a species by cloning it? In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 22–39). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dietl, G. P., & Flessa, K. W. (2011). Conservation paleobiology: putting the dead to work. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(1), 30–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, A. J., Hammerschlag, N., Cooke, S. J., Costa, D. P., & Irschik, D. J. (2015). Evolutionary theory as a tool for predicting extinction risk. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(2), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: the burgess shale and the nature of history. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1993). The wheel of fortune and the wedges of progress. In S. J. Gould (Ed.), Eight little piggies: reflections in natural history (pp. 300–312). New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Gould, S. J., & Lloyd, E. (1999). Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 11904–11909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grantham, T. (1995). Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution: recent work on species selection and the ‘effect hypothesis’. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grantham, T. (2002). Species selection. In M. Pagel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evolution (pp. 1086–1087). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grantham, T. (2007). Is macroevolution more than successive rounds of microevolution? Paleontology, 50(1), 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D. K., & Meltzer, D. J. (2003). A requiem for North American overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 585–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harries, P. J., & Knorr, P. O. (2009). What does the ‘Lilliput effect’ mean? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 284, 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R. (1992). On artifacts and works of art. Theoria, 58(1), 58–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (1987). Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of cretaceous mollusks. Science, 238, 360–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (2008). Species selection: theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 501–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. E. (2014). From dinosaurs to dodos: who could and should we de-extinct? Frontiers in Biogeography, 6(1), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, D. (2013). Reintroduction and de-extinction. Bioscience, 63(9), 719–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction: an unnatural history. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E., & Gould, S. J. (1993). Species selection on variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 595–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLaurin, J., & Sterelny, K. (2008). What is biodiversity? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. (2005). Twilight of the mammoths: Ice Age extinctions and the rewilding of America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, H. (2008). Let’s make a mammoth. Nature, 456, 310–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. (1987). Why preserve natural variety? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, M. (2014). Biodiversity and the value of human involvement. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 150–169). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, M., & Siipi, H. (Eds.). (2014). The ethics of animal recreation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., & Simberloff, D. (1973). Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology, 81, 525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, T. C., & Lockwood, R. (2012). Integrating paleobiology, archaeology, and history to inform biological conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. (2005). Biodiversity and environmental philosophy: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (2015). How to clone a mammoth: the science of de-extinction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, P. J., Griffiths, C. J., Soorae, P. S., & Armstrong, D. P. (2014a). Reversing defaunation: restoring species in a changing world. Science, 345(6195), 406–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A., & Ewen, J. (2014b). Reintroducing resurrected species: selecting deextinction candidates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29(3), 140–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski, D. (2012). Rereading the fossil record. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sherkow, J. S., & Greely, H. T. (2013). What if extinction is not forever? Science, 340, 32–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siipi, H. (2014). The authenticity of animals. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 77–96). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (2013). South African game reserve poisons rhino’s horns to prevent poaching. The Guardian (4 April 2013), available online at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/04/rhino-horns-poisoned-poachers-protect. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

  • Stanley, S. (1975). A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 72(2), 6467–6650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterrett, S. (2002). Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection: how does it go? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33, 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. (2010). Gould’s replay revisited. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. (2011). Paleontology: a philosophical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. (2014). The restorationist argument for extinction reversal. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 40–59). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. (2016). “Conservation paleobiology,” extinct: the philosophy of palaeontology blog, 21 March 2016, available online at http://www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2016/3/16/conservation.

  • Vrba, E. (1983). Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect. Science, 221, 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E. (1984). What is species selection? Systematic Zoology, 33, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E., & Gould, S. J. (1989). The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology, 12, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (2003). The future of life. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolverton, S. (2010). The North American Pleistocene overkill hypotheses and the rewilding debate. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 874–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ISHPSSB meeting in Montreal, Canada, in July 2015. I am very grateful to colleagues at that meeting (especially Leonard Finkelman, Markku Oksanen, and Helena Siipi) for their ideas and critical feedback. The paper has also benefitted from helpful comments from Russell Powell, as well as two anonymous referees for this journal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT, 06320, USA

    Derek D. Turner

Authors
  1. Derek D. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek D. Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, D.D. De-extinction as Artificial Species Selection. Philos. Technol. 30, 395–411 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0232-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0232-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation