But why, no really, I get that we're technically at fault, but the world changes, there are billions (about 5 billion to be exact) of extinct species, which ones do we pick to un-extinct? Do we have to prove that we or one of our ancestors was a direct cause for the extinction? And when we do un-extinct a species, what does that achieve, other than entertainment for some few people and maybe the feeling of having achieved something "good"? Surely the money spent researching this could be better spent making the world as it is a better place and improving ways in which humans interact with the world to reduce extinction rates and general harm to the environment.
Keystone species can be important to the overall environment and other animals. Bring back the right ones and you could improve the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
I have to say that I generally agree with you, though that's unpopular.
It's a cool project and it has scientific merit, it's cool to do just because they'll do something that's never been done before, and learn things that can be useful elsewhere.
I do kind of agree that it seems pointless, and their justification seems more moral than it does practical.
The moralistic side of this stuff sometimes seems to verge on nature worship with some people. It seems that we have somehow got it in our collective heads that we need to preserve the planet _exactly_ how it was right before the Industrial Revolution started, forever.
