I would love to see the old mega-fauna of North America, or return a recently lost species. But I wholeheartedly agree with the article that until their habitat is restored and the wilderness of the world respected, why bring them back with no home to go to? It seems like having a whale spontaneously materialize miles above a planets surface, highly improbable and short lived.
If people could learn to live around a more wild world, we could return large tracts of the continents back into relatively unbroken wilderness. The wilderness corridor movements come to mind, like this one to restore a West coast corridor.
Once we have a place for them to live freely, I can see the value of bringing back animals. Like the Mastodon to go clean up the understory of western forests and in doing so help reduce forest fires back to their "natural" levels. Or passenger pigeon cloning then breeding in the billions, let those birds birds get back to their job of fertilizing on a continental scale.
The phrase "for the greater good" is always troubling to me. I find when a person, a group and especially a majority invoke those words they forget that every decision that applies to all will negatively impact someone or something. How many "unintended consequences" have reckless scientists loosed upon the world? Diversity is great, but I think the dead are dead.
Ezekiel 37:3: "And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest." A certain famous scientist thought of himself as Shiva once. I don't like it when scientists think they are gods.
Thanks Rick, that was just the scene I was thinking of.
I am not sure whether this or GMO crops are further down the slippery slope...
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi
"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words." --Francis of Assisi.
"Family farms work when the whole family works the farm." -- Adam Klaus