Argumentative Essay On Jurassic Park

John Wiens, an evolutionary biologist at Stony Brook University in New York says, “There is a terrible urgency to saving threatened species and habitats.” He continues in saying “As far as I can see, there is little urgency for bringing back extinct ones. Why invest millions of dollars in bring a handful of species back from the dead, when there are millions still waiting to be discovered, described, and protected?” This is a problem for many scientists and Paul R. Ehrlich states in his article, The Case of De- Extinction:It is a Fascinating but Dumb Idea, says that “It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and conservation into preventing extinctions, by tackling the causes of demise….” This is proving that de-extinction is a bad idea because of the facts that it is more important to put money and research into conservation efforts. By focusing on de-extinction. We are tearing away our focus on these efforts and putting it into something that may or may not work. Something never tested that could possibly hurt not help the environment. Paul R Ehrlich also states that “De-extinction seems far- fetched, financially problematic, and extremely unlikely to succeed.” With de- extinction hindering conservation efforts and being unlikely to succeed it is clear that we should not even attempt de-extinction. However hindering conservation efforts is only one way that de-extinction is a bad

Imagine a world with a flourish environment, with animals you would never dream to see. Imagine a world where we could bring back extinct animals. Some people believe that bringing back animals is unethical. But these animals can do so much for us. We should bring back extinct animals because it can help the ecosystem and some of the animals extinction was our fault.

In nature, there are cases where species go extinct due to humans or for uncontrollable reasons. Recent scientific development has allowed a new idea called de-extinction the act of cloning extinct species using DNA samples from the past and biotechnology. However, extinct species should not be brought back to existence as the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. Another issue that arises with de-extinction is that resurrected species could become pests in their new environment.

In this article, the major conflict discussed is whether scientists should pursue de-extinction in the years to come. De-extinction, also referred to as resurrection biology, is the process of creating an organism that either resembles or is a member of an extinct species. Scientists are fascinated by this field, but it sparks a major conflict with the ethical implications. I found this article extremely interesting because before reading this, I had never heard about this debate. I knew that technology is constantly growing and improving, but I didn’t know scientists were even considering this. When this debate was first introduced in the article, I thought it was fascinating and that scientists should definitely pursue this. What I did not think about however, are the questions one has to consider when delving into de-extinction- Where is the money coming from? Our country alone is in tremendous debt already. How much time will all this take? And the overall question is: Is all the time and money worth it? Would our species,

Today, our society is changing so fast that we barely even notice it’s happening. Soon enough, our society will be able to do what the scientists in Jurassic Park did, and create copies of our “once exist” giants. But while science and technology evolves, we should be the ones to bring up the question not “if we can,’ but rather, “should we?” Dinosaurs are ravenous and dangerous creatures that could tear us apart into pieces, but if properly contained, could be a magnificent sight for many to view. Nature removed the dinosaurs from our planet by selection, but we can use our superior intelligence to play god through biological manipulation. In an article by Thomas Sumner and Bjorn Carey, they discuss the ethics of reviving dead species such as the ones in Jurassic Park, and denote that the technology is in our near future. “Twenty years after the release of Jurassic Park, the dream of bringing back the dinosaurs remains science fiction. But scientists predict that within 15 years they will be able to revive some more recently extinct species, such as the dodo or the passenger pigeon, raising the question of whether or not they should – just because they can” (Sumner and Carey).

Scientist are closer than ever to recreating mammoths. They have been working so hard for several years. But this is wrong. This is inhumane and just wrong. They died for a reason and if the come back they will not be able to survive. It is against all religious rules. This is wrong and close to a disaster.

As stated in the Point argument, de-extinction is a way to undo what humans have done to nature, and a way to prevent it. The argument explains, "[Woolly Mammoth's] return to the north would bring back carbon-fixing grass and reduce greenhouse-gas-releasing tundra" (Point para 3). This explains how bringing back extinct animals

In my opinion we should not go through with the de-extinction because in the article 5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 reasons not to) it states, “People could be exploiting animals for solely humans purposes, and may cause individuals of the de-extinct species harm.” People could be using them for fame instead of scientific purposes and could be harming them. From the same article it states, “Species could carry retroviruses or pathogens when brought back to life.” The species could have a disease that we are not use to, could make it harder to bring back to life, and we may not know how to cure it.

The technologies currently used to re-introduce extinct species could lead to major developments in genetic engineering – scientists could revive vast numbers of genomic sequences of DNA. (Sherkow and Greeley, 2013). By developing the ability to reverse the cycle, reverting adult cells into embryonic cells, this provides further evidence that de-extinction and cloning of such species would be ultimately beneficial (Carl Zimmer, 2013). In addition, these genomes can be applied to phylogenetic studies and to predict future trends in biology. For example, the population of bucardo (wild goat), inhabiting Europe for thousands of years was severely reduced by hunters. Biologists discovered and monitored the only bucardo that had survived, Celia, until she was killed by a falling tree. However, scientists had preserved her genomes and injected them into goat eggs – no longer having DNA. These eggs were planted into 57 hybrids between the Spanish ibex and domestic goats. Seven of these hybrids became pregnant and one of these embryos was carried to its birth. Unfortunately, Celia’s clone passed away due to a lung defect. (Rincon, 2013) Regardless, scientists use the observations and data from this experiment to continue with their work regarding de-extinction. Cloning proves to be beneficial for the technological and scientific

Scientist may be able to revive the animals and bring them back. But however if they do the dinosaurs, and all of the carnivores will kill the human species. The people will have dangers everywhere the walk. The human race will never be safe, even if the are in there house They will always have to worry about being killed by the animals, and the dangers. Some people might like to bring the animals back, but it would be stupid to because we would all get killed. That’s why scientists should not bring back the animals.

There are many animals that have went extinct due to humans in some way, shape, or form. If it is due to our overpopulation and moving into new areas taking over other habitats, which could also be deforestation or if it is due to poaching. For example, the West African Black Rhino was officially announced as extinct as of last year, 2016. Others like the passenger pigeon, Chinese river dolphin, wooly mammoth, and Tasmanian tiger are on the list of interest to begin working with their DNA. Scientist would like to bring species back like these and do not plan to waste any time on others like the T-rex who has been gone for about 65 million years. First, the T-rex is not needed in our present ecosystem. Secondly, we do not have a living species that could lay an egg at that size. Their plan is to not recreated “Jurassic Park,” the movie but to revive the species we have harm to possibly help the environment. Many of the species that have already become extinct have made impacts on our living species to the point that they are declining. The ecosystems have changed and our existing species are struggling to evolve. The wooly mammoth was a major contributor to their ecosystem in the Arctic. When mammoths no longer existed, the area went from grasslands to the cold tundra it is today. The limitations with this would be funding and would they

The Long Now Foundation has created an outline of criteria for determining if a species is a good candidate for de-extinction. Broadly speaking, these criteria examine not only whether it is possible to create such a clone or hybrid, but whether any individuals that are successfully bred could thrive in the wild, and whether the renewal of the population would have positive or negative consequences for the modern ecosystem. Some species, like the mammoth, require an ecosystem that can only be provided for them through the managed alteration of the existing

In 2003 the Pyrenean Ibex, an extinct subspecies, was successfully cloned and brought back to life albeit only for a few minutes (Zimmer, 2015.) Thus bringing the idea of cloning extinct species itself to life. Newton (2015) shows that in animals cloning is achieved by transplanting the nucleus of one animal into an enucleated egg cell of another. Cloning has become more precise and increasingly common in our rapidly progressing society (Newton, 2015) however from this a debate as to whether these technologies should be used to clone and bring back extinct animals has arisen. A central reason as to why this causes such a large debate is due to the apparent defiance of nature that is occurring (Zimmer, 2015.) There are many arguments

As humans we are constantly intrigued by the idea of bring species that have been long extinct back to life in order study them and gain more knowledge about them. It has been estimated that about 99% of the four billion species on earth are extinct. Scientists and researcher gather what information that they can from the resources available, but there is so much more that we do not know, and are yet to find out. And with advances in cloning and genetic, that thought is not very far from becoming a reality.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a living Woolly Mammoth? Well I am strongly against bringing animals back through a process called de-extinction. Scientists should not bring animals back to life for many reasons. Three reasons why I believe this are: ecosystems have changed since the extinct animal was alive, we won’t care if we kill other species because we can just revive them, and de-extinction has unforeseen consequences (Jurassic Park). These reasons are why I do not support de-extinction.