Are efforts to resurrect the northern white rhino more technological hubris than genuine conservation?

In the heart of northern Kenya, the last two northern white rhinos, Najin and Fatu, symbolize both the tragedy of extinction and the hope of scientific intervention. Their existence on the Ol Pejeta wildlife reserve captures the stark reality of a species driven to the brink by poaching and habitat loss due to human activity. As visitors gaze upon these magnificent creatures, they are unwittingly part of a larger narrative woven with threads of genetic engineering and ethical dilemmas. Behind the scenes, a consortium of scientists, veterinarians, and technologists, including Colossal Biosciences, undertakes ambitious attempts to reverse extinction through gene editing and in vitro fertilization. Their goal is to create a genetically viable northern white rhino population, using southern white rhinos as surrogates. This endeavor raises critical questions: Is this a legitimate form of conservation, or merely an exercise in 'technological hubris'? Critics argue that while saving Najin and Fatu is commendable, the focus on such high-profile efforts distracts from more pressing issues facing many other species, including southern white rhinos. The debate highlights a moral obligation to address the root causes of extinction rather than solely relying on technology. The narrative surrounding de-extinction also treads precariously between hope and skepticism, with scientists advocating for balance—urging that a DNA sample does not equate to restoring a species in its ecological niche. As we contemplate the lives of these two rhinos, we are compelled to consider van Dooren's sentiment: perhaps, it is more humane to accept extinction rather than impose humanitarian-driven technological interventions that may not truly reflect the essence of conservation.