Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why could de-extinction reduce public concern about preventing extinctions?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Replica of a woolly mammoth with long curved tusks and shaggy fur on display in a museum exhibit, set against a dramatic painted landscape backdrop. — de-extinction The woolly mammoth (*Mammuthus primigenius*)—represented here by a replica in a Canadian museum—is an example of an extinct species that someday could be resurrected through de-extinction.

The prospect of de-extinction—the process of resurrecting species that have gone extinct—carries significant ethical risks regarding global conservation efforts.

A primary concern is that the ability to bring species back from the dead could inadvertently create a "moral hazard." By offering the option to resurrect species at a later date, de-extinction may foster a false sense of security, potentially condoning the loss of biodiversity in the present. This mindset risks undermining the urgency of protecting currently endangered species and their habitats. If society believes that extinction is reversible, it may provide an unfortunate impetus for activities and policies that threaten ecosystems, ultimately weakening the public and political will required to prevent further extinctions.1

It is ethically imperative to recognize that de-extinction is not a substitute for conservation. Because many species were driven to extinction by habitat loss and current environments have often been altered beyond the point of supporting these animals, relying on future resurrection ignores the immediate, fundamental responsibility to protect the living world.1