Archer and Brand both argues that people have caused the extinction, so people should be responsible for what they did, by supporting the work of de-extinction. As Rich mentions in his article, it is undeniable facts that people have caused the extinction of many species such as the Dodo or the Passenger Pigeon. Even though some of the animals have gone extinct even before we born, it is still our job to fix the mess either our ancestors or us created to those animals lives. De-extinction is the only way to bring the animals back to live as it deserved. Nevertheless, the argument about moral concern is not enough to claim that we should revive extinct animals. Hank Greely argues why extinct animals should be brought back if it died shortly after. He claimed that we do not know who is responsible for the extinction, either our ancestors or ourselves, so there is no clear reason for us to be responsible for those extinct animals. The success case of Zimmer to bring back the Pyrenean Ibex is also pointed out the moral concern on whether or not extinct animals should be brought back to live. After the dead of the last Pyrenean Ibex, the scientists has decided to test the cloning method on 208 goats, which only one successfully give birth. However, the baby ibex only survived for ten minutes, and during that short period of times, the animal has to suffer from lung defect and having trouble breathing in oxygen till once again the animal go back to extinct. As we can see this success revival, people believe is the hope for de-extinction, but the underlying result is the suffering of both the extinct animals that could not survive in the modern environment and the existing animals that being uses for experiments. Moral concern is it for the animal’s benefits or our selfishness. The purpose of de-extinction is for extinct animals to be able to live again, but if it only