2018/01/02 by Yasha Rohwer, Emma Marris · 39 citations
Environmental Science · Social Sciences · Psychology · #Environmental Philosophy and Ethics #Geographies of human-animal interactions #Climate Change Communication and Perception #Mammoth #Character (mathematics) #Extinction (optical mineralogy) #Environmental ethics #Sociology #Action (physics) #Pleasure #Epistemology #Psychology #Archaeology #History #Philosophy #Biology #Paleontology
paper · doi:10.1080/21550085.2018.1448043
published in Ethics Policy & Environment 21(1), 127-142 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2018/01/02 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2025/11/06
We argue that the de-extinction of the mammoth cannot be ethically grounded by duties to the extinct mammoth, to ecosystem health or to individual organisms in ecosystems missing the mammoth. However, the action can be shown to be morally permissible via the goods it will afford humans, including advances in scientific knowledge, valuable experiences of awe and pleasure, and perhaps improvements to our moral character or behaviour—if and only if suffering is minimal. Finally, we call for empirical research into how the possibility of the technology affects our behaviour or our character to help the debate transcend duelling intuitions.