Unfortunately, this point makes sense. The original environment that such a giant carnivore lived in no longer exists, after all, so where would it live today? Nevertheless, this will not satiate those who wish to see a National Park built in order to make this work, one that is engineered to be suitable for these apex predators to roam around.
The second point advises that resurrections should only be applied to species whose ecological jobs are truly irreplaceable.
Although the decline or demise allows up-and-coming animals to fill gaps left by former dominating lifeforms, illustrated beautifully by the rise of opportunistic mammals alongside the disappearance of the non-avian dinosaurs, some extinctions can really put a strain on an ecosystem. If sharks died out, for example, the lack of major apex predators in the world’s oceans would cause marine food chains to collapse.
The third point notes that only species that can reproduce effectively and proliferate back into an environment should be brought back. This implies that viable populations belonging to natural areas, and not visually resplendent creatures destined only for zoo-based life, is the focus here.
All in all, these guidelines hope to start a conversation about de-extinction, something the team say will be a (drum roll please) "mammoth undertaking".
Some argue that current conservation efforts, like environmental protection, breeding programs, ecological awareness, and crackdowns on poaching, should be the focus. They argue that de-extinction will make people less likely to work on preventing the extinctions occurring in the first place.
This team imply that both conservation and species resurrection could work together in ecologically smart ways. Shame about the distinct lack of Velociraptors, though.
Looks like saber tooth cats won't be brought back either. Sfocato/Shutterstock