Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things by M.R. O'ConnorMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things feels like a companion/response to The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History because the touch on similar themes: what have we humans done to our ecosystems? Unlike Sixth Extinction, though, Resurrection Science examines some of the efforts in response to what seems to be one of the biggest massive die-offs we've seen.
Or is it? The intro muses over how we define the numbers of species going extinct and how we calculate it. It seems as the rates have been overestimated so that's somewhat cheering, but habitats are still being lost at a rapid rate. When we make efforts to conserve a species, just what are we conserving- the species itself, as many amphibian species such as the spray toads of Kihansi in Tanzania have their largest populations in captivity, or habitat restoration? What about the Frozen Arks-we preserve the DNA, the blueprints for many organisms, but does that save behaviors and interactions between species? (If we continue the blueprint analogy, it's like using Anasazi blueprints for a kiva but not really knowing what to use it for or how the ceremonies were performed)
Technology can be used for good (Ben Novak's passenger pigeon project is nothing short of ambitious, but also amazing considering he was able to extract over 60% passenger pigeon DNA from museum specimens- a huge win for studying old DNA). But, it shouldn't be considered a substitute for a more comprehensive view of our world, and while we can rescue species, does it matter if their habitats and their interactions are gone?
As my last couple updates indicate, I really enjoyed the coda where O'Connor considers why we feel this drive to save endangered/revive extinct species- what exactly is "nature" and "natural" in an age where Homo sapiens have touched every part of the globe in the last thousands of years? Pupfish populations are isolated and scattered- if one originated because a fish biologist moved them to a non-military site location, is it natural, or does that even matter because pupfish are so rare? The intangibility of 'nature' doesn't mean we shouldn't try to atone for our actions as a species, but consideration should be made on why we feel the need to do so.
View all my reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment