2023

Bovenkerk, Bernice; Boersma, Keje
Of Mammoths and Megalomaniacs Journal Article
In: Environmental Ethics, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 381-402, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Conceptual disruption, Conservation, De-extinction, Gene Drives
@article{Bovenkerk2023,
title = {Of Mammoths and Megalomaniacs},
author = {Bernice Bovenkerk and Keje Boersma},
doi = {10.5840/enviroethics202382964},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-09-05},
urldate = {2023-09-05},
journal = {Environmental Ethics},
volume = {45},
number = {4},
pages = {381-402},
abstract = {In this article, two ways of thinking about the potential disruptiveness of de-extinction and
gene drives for conservation are presented. The first way of thinking zooms in on particular
technologies and assesses the disruptiveness of their potential implications. This approach is
exemplified by a framework proposed by Hopster (2021) that is used to conduct our assessment.
The second way of thinking turns the logic of the first around. Here, the question is
how gene drives and de-extinction fit into a wider and partly pre-existing context of disruption
of human-nature relations. By only zooming in on a particular technology and its potential
implications, the context out of which the technology is born is unavoidably disregarded.
Gene drives and de-extinction are catalysts of a wider disruption already underway. And it
is precisely because this disruption is already underway that the terrain is opened for the
development and application of these technologies. In other words, the disruptiveness of
these technologies strengthens the disruptiveness that was already underway and vice versa.
It is argued that the two ways of thinking about emerging technologies in conservation need
to go together, meaning in technology assessment both perspectives need to be included.},
keywords = {Conceptual disruption, Conservation, De-extinction, Gene Drives},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this article, two ways of thinking about the potential disruptiveness of de-extinction and
gene drives for conservation are presented. The first way of thinking zooms in on particular
technologies and assesses the disruptiveness of their potential implications. This approach is
exemplified by a framework proposed by Hopster (2021) that is used to conduct our assessment.
The second way of thinking turns the logic of the first around. Here, the question is
how gene drives and de-extinction fit into a wider and partly pre-existing context of disruption
of human-nature relations. By only zooming in on a particular technology and its potential
implications, the context out of which the technology is born is unavoidably disregarded.
Gene drives and de-extinction are catalysts of a wider disruption already underway. And it
is precisely because this disruption is already underway that the terrain is opened for the
development and application of these technologies. In other words, the disruptiveness of
these technologies strengthens the disruptiveness that was already underway and vice versa.
It is argued that the two ways of thinking about emerging technologies in conservation need
to go together, meaning in technology assessment both perspectives need to be included.
gene drives for conservation are presented. The first way of thinking zooms in on particular
technologies and assesses the disruptiveness of their potential implications. This approach is
exemplified by a framework proposed by Hopster (2021) that is used to conduct our assessment.
The second way of thinking turns the logic of the first around. Here, the question is
how gene drives and de-extinction fit into a wider and partly pre-existing context of disruption
of human-nature relations. By only zooming in on a particular technology and its potential
implications, the context out of which the technology is born is unavoidably disregarded.
Gene drives and de-extinction are catalysts of a wider disruption already underway. And it
is precisely because this disruption is already underway that the terrain is opened for the
development and application of these technologies. In other words, the disruptiveness of
these technologies strengthens the disruptiveness that was already underway and vice versa.
It is argued that the two ways of thinking about emerging technologies in conservation need
to go together, meaning in technology assessment both perspectives need to be included.