The financial costs of de-extinction could be kept down if carefully planned, so they would not have an impact on funds for other conservation initiatives.

Question

Answer

Pro: Revived species could live better and for longer periods of time if their health was improved through genetic means. This could reduce the cost of raising and keeping them.

Answer

Con: The technology behind de-extinction is still risky and uncertain. Too much money could be wasted trying to manage these unknown effects.

Answer

Con: Even if costs were minimized, they would still exist. The most likely way of covering those new costs would be to take money from current conservation initiatives.

Could the de-extinction of certain species help the environment?

The financial costs of de-extinction could be kept down if carefully planned, so they would not have an impact on funds for other conservation initiatives.

Pros

Cons

Revived species could live better and for longer periods of time if their health was improved through genetic means. This could reduce the cost of raising and keeping them.

The technology behind de-extinction is still risky and uncertain. Too much money could be wasted trying to manage these unknown effects.

Even if costs were minimized, they would still exist. The most likely way of covering those new costs would be to take money from current conservation initiatives.

Selected claim, opposing its parent

The financial costs of de-extinction could be kept down if carefully planned, so they would not have an impact on funds for other conservation initiatives.

Pro claim 1

Revived species could live better and for longer periods of time if their health was improved through genetic means. This could reduce the cost of raising and keeping them.

Con claim 1

The technology behind de-extinction is still risky and uncertain. Too much money could be wasted trying to manage these unknown effects.

Con claim 2

Even if costs were minimized, they would still exist. The most likely way of covering those new costs would be to take money from current conservation initiatives.