C2 Reading Test – Ethics of De-extinction & Rewilding
Practice C2 Reading for free: weigh trade-offs in de-extinction and rewilding. Evaluate evidence, causality, and policy implications.
Read the passage and decide if each statement is True (T) or False (F).
Advocates of de-extinction argue that bringing back functionally similar organisms—via back-breeding, cloning, or gene editing—could restore lost ecological roles: grazing patterns that maintain mosaics, seed dispersal networks, or predator–prey dynamics that check overabundant herbivores. They frame the projects as extensions of existing rewilding: not nostalgia, but functional repair. Critics counter that ecosystems have not stood still; climate baselines have shifted, pathogens have moved, and human land use has fragmented habitats. Releasing proxy species into altered systems may create novel interactions with uncertain externalities.
Ethically, the debate turns on opportunity costs and responsibility. Money and talent devoted to charismatic proxies might crowd out quieter wins: wetland restoration, invasive-species control, or wildlife corridors that benefit extant populations. There is also a risk of moral hazard: if extinction is perceived as reversible, incentives to protect habitats can weaken. Proponents reply that de-extinction is a research catalyst: cryobanks, synthetic biology toolchains, and long-term husbandry can generate spillovers for conservation medicine and genetic rescue of critically endangered species.
Governance is the other hinge. Success cannot be measured by birth alone, but by sustained, self-regulating populations in landscapes where communities consent to share space and risk. That requires liability rules for crop damage and disease transmission, adaptive management that can pause or reverse introductions, and transparent monitoring so failure is visible rather than quietly rationalized. Ultimately, the ethical question is less “Can we?” than “Under what conditions would doing so reduce suffering and increase ecological integrity compared to the best alternative uses of funds?”
Supporters claim de-extinction can restore ecological functions rather than merely recreate museum pieces.
The passage states that current ecosystems closely match historical baselines, so risks are minimal.
Critics worry that proxy species could interact unpredictably with today’s altered environments.
Opportunity cost refers here to de-extinction potentially diverting resources from existing conservation work.
The text argues that moral hazard is impossible because extinction cannot be reversed.
Proponents say de-extinction infrastructure may produce spillover benefits for conservation medicine.
According to the passage, a single successful birth is a sufficient metric for ethical success.
Community consent and liability frameworks are presented as parts of responsible governance.
Adaptive management includes the ability to halt or reverse introductions if harms emerge.
The concluding view is that the ethical decision depends on comparative outcomes versus alternative uses of funds.