![]() |
| Image created by Sergiodlarosa |
Since 2005, due in no small part to a commentary article published in Nature, Pleistocene rewilding has been a source of friction in conservation biology. Pleistocene rewilding generally differs from traditional conservation biology in its support for introducing extinct megafauna or a proxy species to positively impact ecosystems at the landscape scale.
In an edge.org discussion, Ryan Phelan attempts to justify rewilding
because extinction primarily is caused by man.
She frames the issue as such:
"One of the fundamental questions here is, is extinction a good thing? Is it "nature's way"? And if it's nature's way, who in the world says anyone should go about changing nature's way? If something was meant to go extinct, then who are we to screw around with it and bring it back? I don't think it's really nature's way. I think that the extinction that we've seen since man is 99.9 percent caused by man."
Phelan’s questions seem to accuse Pleistocene rewilding
opponents as being not only the cause of anthropogenic eradication of species
but also apathetic to the possibility of reversing that same eradication. There
are several underlying assumptions in her questions worth questioning.
- When does one start the clock on which extinctions should be considered “caused by man”?
- Does the fact that man caused an extinction necessitate the reintroduction of the extinct species?
- Even if we conclude that man has a duty to reintroduce all animals since the Pleistocene, how would one go about it?


