If extinct species were brought back, they might not be able to successfully reintroduced into the environment while maintaining environmental homeostasis. The environments of species that have gone extinct have in most cases undergone significant physical and ecological changes. As a result of these changes, some populations of wildlife have decreased by as much as 50% in the past forty years (Dell’Amore, 2014). If the niches of living changes have changed so much in the past forty years, the niches for species that went extinct decades or centuries ago could have experienced even more drastic changes. If species do not have a specific and necessary niche in the existing ecosystem, in efforts to survive, they may end up over-consuming resources, invading distant habitats, etc. (Jørgensen, 2013). By doing this, they may cause an imbalance to the environment. …show more content…
For example, artifically de-extincted organisms may suffer birth defects, surrogate mothers may die and existing organisms could be threatened by possible environment imbalances (Zimmer, 2013). It represents a logical contradiction to accept these realities and still advocate that de-extinction will correct the moral and environmental wrong of bringing these organisms to extinction in the first place (Lester, 2016). Let’s observe a logical argument in this form: de-extinction would increase biodiversity, greater biodiversity is always positive for the environment, and therefore, de-extinction is positive for the environment. Although this argument appears valid, the assertion that greater biodiversity is always positive for the environment does not hold, rendering a premise false and the argument as a whole to be