The extinction of a species has traditionally been considered permanent. However, advances in genetics and conservation science are beginning to challenge that assumption. I believe humanity should support the responsible revival of extinct species when it can be done ethically, safely, and scientifically. This does not mean bringing back every extinct animal simply because we can. It means carefully considering whether restoring a species could benefit ecosystems, advance conservation, and potentially repair damage caused by human activity. Humans have caused or contributed to many extinctions through overhunting, habitat destruction, pollution, and other actions. If humans have played a role in destroying parts of nature, it is reasonable to consider whether we should use science to repair some of that damage. De-extinction research could also benefit species that are still alive. The same genetic technologies used to study extinct species could potentially help endangered animals maintain genetic diversity, resist disease, and avoid extinction in the first place. The opposing side may argue that de-extinction is dangerous, expensive, or ethically questionable. Those are legitimate concerns, but they support regulation and careful oversight—not an automatic ban. We do not ban every new scientific technology simply because it carries risks. We establish rules to ensure it is used responsibly. The real question is not simply, ‘Can we bring back an extinct species?’ The question is, ‘Should we bring back this particular species, in this particular environment, under these particular conditions?’ In some cases, the answer may be no. But in other cases, the potential benefits could be significant. Therefore, responsible de-extinction should remain an option.

Because I don't believe this has to be a choice between the dead and the dying. You are presenting a false choice: either we protect endangered species or we research de-extinction. Conservation funding is not one giant pile of money where every dollar spent on genetic research automatically disappears from orangutan habitat protection. Different governments, universities, nonprofits, and private organizations fund different priorities. The question is not whether we should protect rhinos, tigers, and orangutans—we absolutely should. The question is whether we should permanently ban a scientific field that could potentially improve conservation technology. You also assume that the woolly mammoth's extinction proves it could not survive today. But that is not necessarily true. The mammoth did not simply fail to survive because it was inherently incapable of surviving. Its extinction involved major environmental changes, including the loss of the ecosystems it depended on and human pressure. If those conditions changed, the question becomes whether suitable habitat could exist today—not whether the species was somehow biologically destined to disappear. And I am not arguing that we should immediately release thousands of resurrected mammoths into the wild. That would be irresponsible. A responsible project would require years of research, controlled environments, ecological modeling, and animal-welfare standards before any possible reintroduction. If the evidence showed that a species could not survive humanely or would harm modern ecosystems, then we should not release it. But your argument against de-extinction is largely an argument against doing it badly. I agree that creating an animal simply to put it in a zoo as a scientific spectacle would be a poor use of resources. But that does not prove every de-extinction project would be a scientific stunt. The purpose could be ecological restoration, genetic research, or developing technologies that help endangered species. In fact, your argument about endangered animals can support my position. The genetic technologies developed through de-extinction research could potentially help living species by preserving genetic diversity, improving reproductive technologies, and preventing future extinctions. We should not treat conservation and de-extinction as mutually exclusive. And finally, I reject the idea that every extinct species must remain extinct simply because humans cannot perfectly recreate the past. We already intervene in nature constantly. We breed endangered species, restore habitats, reintroduce animals, and use technology to prevent extinction. The relevant question is not whether humans are “playing God.” The relevant question is whether we are using our power responsibly. So my position is not “prioritize the dead over the dying.” My position is: protect the dying first, but do not permanently ban research that could help conservation and potentially restore lost ecological functions. Some extinct species should probably never be brought back. Others may someday be candidates for responsible restoration. The answer should be based on science, ethics, cost, and ecological evidence—not a blanket ban. You are asking why we should prioritize the dead over the dying. I would ask you this: why should protecting endangered species require us to abandon every technology that might help prevent the next extinction

Yedidya, you're right about one thing: the current extinction crisis is real, and protecting living endangered species must be an immediate priority. But your argument still assumes that funding de-extinction automatically takes money away from conservation. That is not necessarily true. The fact that species are going extinct today is actually an argument for developing more conservation tools, not fewer. Genetic technologies developed through de-extinction research could potentially help endangered species preserve genetic diversity, improve reproduction, and avoid extinction. We should not assume that research into one area can never benefit another. And the number of species going extinct does not prove that every dollar spent on research into de-extinction is wasted. By that logic, we would have to eliminate almost all scientific research that does not directly save an endangered animal today. Conservation requires immediate action, but science also develops tools for future problems. You also say that bringing back one animal is pointless because thousands of species are threatened. But conservation is not measured only by the number of species directly affected by one project. A technology can have broader applications. The question is whether the research produces useful knowledge and tools—not simply whether the first animal brought back saves every endangered species on Earth. And I agree with you that “responsible oversight” cannot just be a slogan. That is exactly why de-extinction should require strict standards: ecological assessments, animal-welfare requirements, habitat analysis, independent scientific review, and proof that the project has a legitimate conservation or scientific purpose. If a project is just an expensive publicity stunt, reject it. But that is a case against bad de-extinction projects—not against the entire field. You ask where the responsible oversight is for endangered species like the pangolin. My answer is: we need better conservation oversight for them, and we should also investigate whether new technologies can help them. The existence of one conservation failure does not prove that all new conservation research should be abandoned. So no, I am not saying we should spend unlimited money resurrecting extinct animals while ignoring species alive today. I am saying the debate is not “mammoths versus pangolins.” The real question is whether humanity should responsibly develop another tool while continuing to protect living species. I support protecting the dying—and I also oppose permanently banning scientific research that might help prevent future extinctions.