The matter of cloning reached a peak when the CEO of BioArts International, Lou Hawthorne, announced to his company that they were no longer offering dog-cloning services since artificial creation was occurring just for a tiny and uninterested market. Though Stewart Brand was right in a way in talking about how artificial regeneration would lead to “conservation” of lost-species, the purpose of conservation should also be thought in terms of money. When Ehrlich stated that de-extinction, or rather “uninterested” genetics, is “a fascinating but dumb idea”, the CEO and Ehrlich were correct since genetic evolution, is an unnecessary medium of science which involves the expenditure of large amounts of resources and requirements and garners risk to the human society just to create an artificial organism through experiments.
Plenty of resources that were used to create “new” life, are threatening lives for those already persisting in the environment. Instead, what could be done, as Ehrlich says, is that “all the limited resources for science and conservation could be put into preventing extinctions”.
Money, a resource accumulated for funding the man-made specimens could have been used for reducing pollution or in eradicating poverty. Instead, the generation of man-made specimens has taken a claim in spending money only to, as Stewart Brand puts it, "enhance biodiversity through the genetic rescue of endangered and extinct species".
When Victoria Woollaston talks in her article…