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.
AbbeyE.1985. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
2.
AndersonJ.E.1991. ‘A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness’. Conservation Biology5 (3): 347–352. Crossref.
3.
BeeverJ.2017. ‘The ontology of species: Commentary on Kasperbauer's “Should we bring back the passenger pigeon? The ethics of de-extinction”’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 18–20. Crossref.
4.
BerleantA.2004. ‘The aesthetics of art and nature’. In CarlsonA. and BerleantA. (eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 76–88. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press. Crossref.
5.
BermanM.G.. 2014. ‘The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes’. PLoS ONE9(12): e114572. Crossref.
6.
BlocksteinD.E.2017. ‘We can't bring back the passenger pigeon: The ethics of deception around de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 33–37. Crossref.
7.
BoydR.1999. ‘Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa’. In WilsonR.A., (ed.) Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, pp. 141–186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BoydR.2010. ‘Homeostasis, higher taxa, and monophyly’. Philosophy of Science77(5): 686–701. Crossref.
9.
CallicottJ.B.1989. ‘Leopold's land aesthetic’. In CallicottJ.B., (ed.) In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, pp. 239–247. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
CarlsonA.2004. ‘Appreciation and the natural environment’. In CarlsonA. and Berleant'sA. (eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 63–75. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
11.
CohenS.2014. ‘The ethics of de-extinction’. Nanoethics8: 165–178.
12.
CokinosC.2000. Hope Is the Thing with Feathers: A Personal Chronicle of Vanished Birds. New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam. Crossref.
13.
de QueirozK.1998. ‘The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation’. In HowardD.J. and BerlocherS.H. (eds), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, pp. 57–75. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
de QueirozK.2007. ‘Species concepts and species delimitation’. Systematic Biology56(6): 879–886. Crossref.
15.
DiehmC.2017. ‘De-extinction and deep questions about species conservation’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 25–28. Crossref.
16.
DouglasW.O.1965. A Wilderness Bill of Rights. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
17.
EatonM.M.2004. ‘Fact and fiction in the aesthetic appreciation of nature’. In CarlsonA. and BerleantA. (eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 170–181. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
18.
EreshefskyM.1998. ‘Species pluralism and anti-realism’. Philosophy of Science65(1): 103–120. Crossref.
FisherJ.A.2004. ‘What the hills are alive with: In defense of the sounds of nature’. In CarlsonA. and BerleantA. (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.
HaughtP.2017. ‘Integral value and the virtue of hospitality: A response to Kasperbauer’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 29–32. Crossref.
23.
HoyleH., JorgensenA. and HitchmoughJ.D.. 2019. ‘What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces’. People and Nature1: 267–180. Crossref.
24.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
25.
JungeX., HunzikerM., BauerN., ArnbergerA. and OlschewskiR.. 2019. ‘Invasive alien species in Switzerland: Awareness and preferences of experts and the public’. Environmental Management63: 90–93. Crossref.
26.
KaplanS.1987. ‘Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective’. Environment and Behavior19(1): 3–32. Crossref.
27.
KaplanR. and KaplanS.. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KasperbauerT.J.2017. ‘Should we bring back the passenger pigeon? The ethics of de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 1–14. Crossref.
29.
KotchenM.J. and ReilingS.D.. 2000. ‘Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species’. Ecological Economics32: 93–107. Crossref.
30.
LambR.J. and PurcellA.T.. 1990. ‘Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure’. Landscape and Urban Planning19: 333–352. Crossref.
31.
LeopoldA. and FinchR.1992. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
LiuQ., ZhangY., LinY., YouD., ZhangW., HuangQ., Konijnendijk van den BoschC.C. and LanS.. 2018. ‘The relationship between self-rated naturalness of university green space and students' restoration and health’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening34: 259–268. Crossref.
33.
MachadoA.2004. ‘An index of naturalness’. Journal for Nature Conservation12: 95–110. Crossref.
34.
MargulesC. and UsherM.B., 1981. ‘Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review’. Biological Conservation21: 79–109. Crossref.
35.
MooreG.E. and BaldwinT.. 1993. Principia Ethica, Revised Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MooreR.2004. ‘Appreciating natural beauty as natural’. In CarlsonA. and BerleantA. (eds), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, pp. 214–231. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
37.
NashR.F.1967. Wilderness and the American Mind (Fifth Edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
NortonB.G.1991. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
OdeÅ., FryG., TveitM.S., MessagerP. and MillerD.. 2009. ‘Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference’. Journal of Environmental Management90: 375–383. Crossref.
41.
OhtaH.2001. ‘A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition’. Journal of Environmental Psychology21(4): 387–403. Crossref.
42.
PokagonS.1907. ‘The wild pigeon in North America’. In MershonW.B., (ed.) The Passenger Pigeon, pp. 48–59. Deposit, NY: The Outing Press.
RohwerY. and MarrisE.. 2018. ‘An analysis of potential ethical justifications for mammoth de-extinction and a call for empirical research’. Ethics, Policy & Environment21(1): 127–142. Crossref.
45.
RolstonH.III2001. ‘Natural and unnatural; Wild and cultural’. Western North American Naturalist61(3): 267–276.
46.
RussowL.1981. ‘Why do species matter?’ Environmental Ethics3(2): 101–112.
47.
ShapiroB.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.
SiipiH.2008. ‘Dimensions of naturalness’. Ethics and The Environment13(1): 71–103. Crossref.
50.
SiipiH.2014. ‘The authenticity of animals’. In SiipiH. and OksanenM. (eds), The Ethics of Animal Re-creation and Modification: Reviving, Rewilding, Restoring, pp. 77–96. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.
51.
SiipiH. and FinkelmanL.. 2016. ‘The extinction and de-extinction of species’. Philosophy & Technology30(4): 427–441 Crossref.
52.
SimonicT.2003. ‘Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes’. Zbornik Biotehniške Fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Kmetijstvo. Zootehnika81: 369–387.
53.
SlaterM.H. and ClatterbuckH.. 2018. ‘A pragmatic approach to the possibility of de-extinction’. Biology & Philosophy33(4): 1–21. Crossref.
54.
SmithI.A.2017. ‘De-extinction and the flourishing of species’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 38–40. Crossref.
55.
SmithP.L., GoodmonL.B. and HesterS.. 2018. ‘The Burtynsky effect: Aesthetic reactions to landscape photographs that vary in natural features’. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts12(1): 34–49. Crossref.
56.
StanfordP.K.1995. ‘For pluralism and against realism about species’. Philosophy of Science62(1): 70–91. Crossref.
57.
SterelnyK. and GriffithsP.E.. 1999. Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
TurnerD.D.2014. ‘The restorationist argument for extinction reversal’. In SiipiH. and OksanenM. (eds), The Ethics of Animal Re-creation and Modification: Reviving, Rewilding, Restoring, pp. 40–59. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.
59.
TurnerD.D.2017. ‘Biases in the selection of candidate species for de-extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment20(1): 21–24. Crossref.
