The ethicality of recreation may be irrelevant soon
The debate whether it would be ethical to recreate species gone extinct long ago has come up again.
A recent development in Australia, in which scientists developed the embryos of the extinct gastric brooding frog, has yet again become a hot topic.
The question raised is if you recreate extinct animals today, what bars you from recreating human beings tomorrow?
In 2003, a team of Spanish and French scientists had recreated the Pyrenean ibex which had gone extinct three years earlier.
True, the resurrection, a clone of the last living Pyrenean ibex, was short-lived as the animal could not adjust itself for long to its surroundings.
But the fact that “resurrection” could be done shows that nothing could be impossible now in the area of recreation of the dead — human beings or animals.
A day may come, sooner than later, when there will be attempts to bring alive long-dead ancestors. How is it possible? Very simple: By keeping the living cells of the dead frozen for a future “resurrection”!
The issue whether scientists should bring alive our departed dear and near ones may cease to be a debating topic soon.
Now all that remains is: When will we see a human being gone long ago resurrected and be once again among us alive and walking and talking.
Though one finds this kind of scenario quite fascinating, the consequences of the “act” can be both positive as well as negative.
Time magazine recently featured the pros and cons of such a future scenario. It said, “Although there are undeniable benefits in reviving a species in theory, there is no way of knowing whether, say, a passenger pigeon would be able to resume its old ecological niche or if it might even crowd out the extinct species. And environmentalists rightly worry that a reliance on de-extinction might erode support for the hard work of traditional conservation. Why worry about preserving wildlife habitat or fighting poaching if we know scientists can just reverse our mistakes?”
But that does not answer the issue of ethicality of the “act”. In fact, no argument for or against the case can give a reasonable and convincing stand.
All one can say is, “Be ready to see your great-grandmom in the near future, for good or bad!”