Deflating the De-Extinction Debates: Domination and Artifactuality are Not the Problem

In his article, Considering de-extinction , Katz (2022) mounts a two-pronged criticism of de-extinction efforts as elements of environmental policy. First, Katz argues that there is no positive case for de-extinction. He points out that many arguments that have been given in support of de-extinction have in fact already been shown deficient in the contexts of other, long-standing debates in environmental philosophy. The case for de-extinction, Katz argues, thus largely rests on zombie arguments that ‘should have been killed, buried, and forgotten long ago’ (Katz, 2022, p. 1). He then goes on to make a case against de-extinction efforts, focusing on the artifactuality of their products and their basis in views of human domination over nature. He argues, among other things, that making de-extinction part of environmental policy manifests ‘the most extreme worldview of management and control’ (Katz, 2022, p. 18; emphasis added) and promotes ‘a paradigm of domination’ of humanity over nature ‘in which nature is considered to be completely subordinate to human goals and desires’ (Katz, 2022, p. 18; emphasis added). Pursuing de-extinction, Katz claims, ‘will lead to an impoverished natural world, a world that is almost exclusively artifactual , a world that is the product of human design’ (Katz, 2022, p. 18; emphasis added). While agreeing with the ‘zombie argument’ step of Katz’s criticism, I disagree with the second step. In this commentary, I will argue that, given the scientific and technological limits of de-extinction, de-extinction does not entail a danger of ending up with ‘a world that is totally artifactual, devoid of the truly natural’ (Katz, 2022, p. 21). Also, I believe de-extinction efforts do not express a of human domination over nature at least not more than widely accepted practices such as conventional breeding and other accepted agricultural practices, or There be good be of the