I thought this the best place to post this.
Thu, June 2, 2011 - 5:53 PMHis lack of urgency is concerning.
This also bothered me:
The European: What is the value of reviving extinct species? Evolution progresses, species die and new ones arise. Why do you want to tamper with that process?
Brand: It sends a message of hope. We can rectify past mistakes, we can undo damage and harm. It would give people the sense that if we can fix something as profound as the extinction of a species, what else could we do for biodiversity? Instead of just complaining about problems, we would move towards fixing problems.
While I agree that it is a compelling idea to revive extinct species -- and an idea I'm cautiously interested in seeing implemented -- I hate the notion of promoting science as a way to "rectify past mistakes." It essentially gives humans license to continue fucking the planet in the selfish belief that it will all be magically fixed -- that somebody else will clean up our mess; it removes personal responsibility from the equation via the invisible hand of a mythical futuristic band-aid.
In my view, not a good philosophy to espouse. Though he does make some good points, as well.