Climate-driven extinction crisis exposes limits of techno-fixes: Genomic interventions risk masking systemic failures in biodiversity governance

Indigenous knowledge systems have preserved biodiversity through adaptive, place-based practices like controlled burns, seed saving, and rotational grazing, which enhance ecosystem resilience without genetic manipulation. These systems are rooted in reciprocal relationships with land, unlike the extractive logic of genomic interventions, which treat nature as a database to be engineered. The erasure of such knowledge in genomic conservation reflects a continuation of colonial science’s dismissal of non-Western epistemologies. Projects like the *Indigenous Peoples’ Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative* demonstrate how traditional practices outperform techno-fixes in climate adaptation.

The current biodiversity crisis mirrors past collapses linked to colonial land grabs and industrial agriculture, such as the Dust Bowl of the 1930s or the collapse of the Easter Island ecosystem. Genomic interventions echo earlier techno-fixes like the Green Revolution, which temporarily boosted yields but eroded genetic diversity and soil health. The history of eugenics in conservation (e.g., forced sterilization of Indigenous peoples in the name of 'population control') casts a shadow over modern genetic interventions. Structural adjustment policies in the 1980s–90s dismantled Indigenous land rights, exacerbating the very vulnerabilities genomic conservation now seeks to address.

In South Asia, the *Chipko Movement* (1970s) showed how Indigenous women’s nonviolent resistance to deforestation preserved biodiversity without biotechnology. The *Zapatista* autonomous municipalities in Mexico have maintained maize diversity through collective seed banks, proving that community-led conservation outperforms corporate interventions. Meanwhile, Arctic Indigenous communities like the Inuit have documented rapid ecosystem shifts for decades, yet their knowledge is sidelined in favor of Western genomic studies. These examples highlight a global pattern: where Indigenous sovereignty is intact, biodiversity thrives, regardless of climate change.

Conservation genomics lacks long-term studies on the ecological risks of genetic interventions, such as unintended gene flow or reduced adaptive potential in wild populations. Research shows that in situ conservation (e.g., protected areas, habitat corridors) is far more effective than ex situ measures like DNA banks for maintaining evolutionary potential. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warns that genomic solutions cannot substitute for systemic reductions in emissions and habitat destruction. Moreover, most genomic studies are conducted in temperate zones, ignoring the hyperdiverse tropics where most species reside.

Artists like Agnes Denes (*Wheatfield—A Confrontation*) and poets like Joy Harjo (*How We Became Human*) frame biodiversity as a sacred covenant between humans and the more-than-human world, challenging the commodification of life. Indigenous art forms, such as Australian Aboriginal dot painting or Navajo sand paintings, encode ecological knowledge and resilience strategies that genomic science cannot replicate. The spiritual dimension of biodiversity is also reflected in the Hindu concept of *Prakriti* (nature as divine) or the Buddhist principle of *dependent origination*, which emphasize interconnectedness over extraction. These perspectives offer ethical frameworks to critique genomic interventions as hubristic.

Scenario modelling by the Stockholm Resilience Centre suggests that without radical emissions cuts and land reparations, genomic interventions will only delay, not prevent, mass extinctions. A 2023 study in *Nature Climate Change* found that even aggressive genomic interventions could not compensate for habitat loss beyond 1.5°C warming. Future governance models must integrate Indigenous legal systems (e.g., *Rights of Nature* laws in Ecuador and New Zealand) with degrowth economics to create resilient ecosystems. The most robust pathways involve rewilding with apex predators (e.g., wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone) and agroecological transitions, which enhance adaptive capacity without genetic engineering.

Smallholder farmers in the Global South, who produce 70% of the world’s food, are systematically excluded from genomic research agendas despite bearing the brunt of biodiversity loss. Women, particularly Indigenous women, are key knowledge holders in seed saving and medicinal plant conservation but are sidelined in favor of male-led scientific institutions. Climate refugees from the Pacific Islands and the Sahel, who face existential threats, have long advocated for systemic solutions like debt cancellation and reparations, not techno-fixes. The marginalisation of these voices reflects a broader pattern of epistemic injustice in environmental governance, where Western science dictates the terms of 'solutions.'