Rewilding, Dire Wolves, and Human Well-Being
There is a concept called rewilding, which is considered a "progressive" approach to conservation. (When progressive is used, be cautious of extremism.) The idea sounds reasonable and noble: Bring back creatures (or their relatives) that were extinct in some areas and let them roam free. Let nature live in peace, love, and grooviness.
Extreme environmental views are wrapped in evolutionary thinking, so humans are just another thing that evolved. We are not exceptional (and certainly not created separately and in the image of God, no siree). Turning wild critters loose can have dire consequences.
![]() |
Gray wolf, US National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) |
. . . reintroduction of dangerous wild animals is almost treated like a holy obligation, even if they pose risks to humans. To a point, the preservation of wild ecological balance is a human responsibility. Wiping out a species for sport or entertainment can hardly be justified. But should the largest wolves the world has ever known be brought back to terrorize Los Angeles? Why would anyone wish such a thing? Let’s look at some news on the subject of rewilding and resurrecting extinct animals. Just because we can, should we?
To read this interesting article in its entirety, see "Re-Wilding vs Human Safety." Does anyone else think that Colossal Bioscience sounds like something from a video game or B-movie?