Does biotechnology mean extinction is no longer a permanent state for our planet's species?

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 29 September 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: For centuries, extinction was considered an irreversible finality. Today, cryopreservation and gene-editing technologies are challenging that definition. As companies race to resurrect extinct creatures like the woolly mammoth, we must ask if these scientific breakthroughs provide genuine ecological solutions or if they create new, unpredictable risks for our environment.

Until the late 18th century, European naturalists largely rejected the idea that species could vanish entirely. The concept of extinction as an ongoing, human-driven process only solidified following the discovery of Neanderthal remains and the rapid loss of species like the great auk and passenger pigeon. Historian Sadiah Qureshi notes that this shift in understanding now faces a new challenge: biotechnology. With the advent of liquid nitrogen banks and frozen zoos, some argue that a species whose cells remain in cryopreservation is not truly dead, forcing us to reconsider when we should officially declare a species lost.

The company Colossal is currently leading efforts to engineer organisms that resemble extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth. By using the Asian elephant’s genome as a foundation, they aim to introduce traits like shaggy coats and resistance to elephant endotheliotropic herpesviruses (EEHV). The project is driven by two primary goals: conserving endangered elephant populations and restoring tundra grasslands to act as carbon sinks. Proponents suggest that reintroducing these animals could help stabilize permafrost and mitigate climate change, potentially breaking a cycle of rising temperatures and greenhouse gas release.

However, the ethics of de-extinction remain heavily contested. Critics point out that we cannot simply reintroduce a species absent for over 4,000 years into a delicate, modern ecosystem without severe repercussions. The tundra has already been altered by climate change, and the introduction of a mammoth-like creature could disrupt existing food webs and threaten native wildlife like the Arctic fox. While Colossal has successfully produced woolly mice, they have provided limited information on how these resurrected animals would integrate into current environments. As the technology advances, the central question remains whether the potential benefits of de-extinction justify the risks posed to the wildlife currently inhabiting these fragile habitats.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Can we truly undo extinction, or are we just creating sophisticated biological proxies?
• Is extinction becoming a reversible biological state?
• Can we resurrect the woolly mammoth and should we actually try to do it?
• Forget Jurassic Park: the science of bringing back the dead is already happening
• Can we actually resurrect the woolly mammoth from its own DNA?
• Can we rewrite the human code, or are we playing with fire?
• How an exiled counterfeiter founded a philosophy of radical freedom
• Forgiveness is not a single act but a complex web of distinct moral experiences.
• Could non-lethal weapons create unexpected moral consequences?
• Would you trade your vehicle privacy for a safer commute on the road?
• Is the sanctity of human life a religious dogma or a universal value?
• How do we decide what is actually right or wrong?

More in Ethics · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics