The Spectacular Garden: Where Might De-extinction Lead?
The Spectacular Garden: Where Might De-extinction Lead?
复制标题
壮观的花园：灭绝灭绝可能会走向何方？
DOI：
10.1002/hast.754
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Kaebnick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Kaebnick
去灭绝的出现是对技术乐观主义的研究。在恢复古代基因组、重建它们以及用工程基因组繁殖动物方面已经取得的成就是惊人的，但要实现大多数人所理解的“反灭绝”还有很长的路要走。尽管如此，有一些警告，为灭绝的物种创造一个功能性的替代品有时可能是可行的，如果目标正确，有时可能是有意义的。国际自然保护联盟关于灭绝的指导方针在保持警告和澄清目标方面做得很好。事实上，考虑到对反灭绝可以实现的目标的正确警告，我们应该对这项技术给予大量关注，并仔细考虑目标。不仅技术在进步，而且我们的环境标准也变得越来越宽松和灵活，为实施技术提供的指导越来越少。保护的指导思想通常被解释为在塞拉俱乐部的创始人约翰·缪尔和帮助创建美国林务局的吉福德·平肖之间做出选择。缪尔主张保护世界上一些地方的自然状态，因为它们具有巨大的价值和美丽。相比之下，平肖则是直截了当的功利主义者。他主张尽量保持一些自然的地方或多或少不受破坏，以便我们以后可以使用它们。长期以来，人们对这一选择一直不满，在过去的几十年里，一些著名的声音提出了一个“园艺伦理”作为一个新的标准，结合了缪尔和平肖的元素。一个园艺伦理应该既庆祝土地，并宣布它现在必须管理。但是，当谈到灭绝时，好的园艺意味着什么呢？
The emergence of de-extinction is a study in technological optimism. What has already been accomplished in recovering ancient genomes, recreating them, and reproducing animals with engineered genomes is amazing but also has a long ways to go to achieve "de-extinction" as most people would understand that term. Still, with some caveats in place, creating a functional replacement for an extinct species may sometimes be doable, and given the right goals, might sometimes make sense. The International Union for Conservation of Nature guidelines for de-extinction do a reasonable job of keeping the caveats in place and clarifying the goals. In fact, given the right caveats about what de-extinction can accomplish, we should pay a lot of attention to the technology and should think carefully about the goals. Not only has the technology been advancing, but our environmental standards have been getting looser and more flexible, providing less guidance for implementing the technology. The guiding ideals for conservation are often explained as a choice between John Muir, founder of The Sierra Club, and Gifford Pinchot, who helped create the U.S. Forest Service. Muir argued for preserving some places in the world in their natural state because of their great value and beauty. Pinchot, by contrast, was bluntly utilitarian. He argued for trying to keep some natural places more or less undamaged so that we could use them later. There has long been dissatisfaction with this choice, and in the last couple of decades, a number of prominent voices have proposed a "gardening ethic" as a new standard that combines elements of Muir and Pinchot. A gardening ethic is supposed to both celebrate the land and declare that it must now be managed. But what would good gardening mean when it comes to de-extinction?