Cons Of De-Extinction

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

One important reason to bring back extinct animals is it could expand our ecosystem. A extinct frog called the Gastric Brooding Frog. This very special frog gives birth. Not only does this frog gives birth, this frog gives birth out of its mouth. And we killed it by pollution and habitat loss. In the article “Raising The Dead” by Elizabeth Kolbert says “Archer is leading the team

It is important to carefully examine the pros and cons of bringing back extinct animals.

Everything in life happens for a reason, and this includes the extinction of species with and without human involvement. To reverse the process of de-extinction as some people put it “amounts to playing God” (96). Although the science behind bringing a species back is admittedly amazing, there are other ways the time and money could be spent. Spending money on animals that are on the brink of extinction, and developing techniques for successfully growing their population, are much more viable options. Frankly, de-extinction, although very remarkable, is not something that should be heavily pursued. Apart from observing a woolly mammoth lounge around behind a thick pane of glass, there is very little reason to use de-extinction to revive one. Our efforts should be turned to the millions of species that currently inhabit the earth, known and

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.

The advent of functional analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994) and functional assessments (Dunlap & Kern, 1993) have provided behavior analysists with great ability to provide effective treatment for their clients. One common topic of research is the treatment of escape-maintained behaviors.

Over the past decades, scientists have developed numerous approach to de-extinct species through back breeding, cloning and genetic engineering. Bringing back extinct species has advantages for both humans and animals. The de-extinction of species such as woolly mammoth and saber tooth tigers would not only advanced scientific knowledge but also have environmental benefit such as restoring environment that are damaged or threatened with the help of certain now-extinct species. But the consequences to bringing extinct species back greatly outweighs the positive. While Victor Frankenstein pursuit for knowledge in itself is justified, playing with the boundaries between life and death is something that should not have tempered with. Extinct species could carry diseases that could potentially wipe humanity from the face of the planet or result in other unforeseen consequences. The de-extinction of species should not be tolerated in order to avoid consequences that could endanger the lives of humanity as well surrounding species.

A report from Recovering America’s Wildlife Crisis states, “More than 150 species have already gone extinct and about 40% of freshwater fish species are imperiled.” Animals are being killed off by the minute. Now the wildlife species are going to abolished from Earth.

For instance, gray wolves, according to the authors of “Using Small Populations of Wolves for Ecosystem Restoration and Stewardship”, “...influence the abundance of ungulates, which in turn affects the structure and composition of plant communities”(Licht et al. 2). Wolves prey on herbivores such as deer and elk, keeping their population under control and thus allowing more plant species that the prey feed on to grow and reproduce. If wolves were to go extinct the prey populations would soar. There would be no predators to hunt the animals, so they would spend less time worrying about predators and more time feeding. This would drastically reduce the population of plant species that the prey animals feed on until there is not enough food to sustain the ever growing prey species. The prey species population would begin to die of starvation and the few animals left would develop a variety of diseases due to malnutrition and genes that were passed through generations of animals. The genes would have not passed through the animals if the wolves had not gone extinct. This is due to the fact that wolves would have eaten the weak prey animals, therefore reducing the chance of weak and sickly offspring and improving the health of future generations of prey animals. Additionally, with the plant

De-extinction should be pursued because of its environmental benefits and its ability to solve some of our global issues. For example, according to Stewart Brand in his article “The Case for Reviving Extinct Species”, “ The mammoths returning to the north would bring back carbon-fixing grass and reduce greenhouse-gas-releasing tundra.” (National Geographic

The concept of bringing a species back to life after it has gone extinct has been around for years. The idea that dinosaurs will roam the earth again has fascinated mankind since the first dinosaur fossils were first put together. Pop culture has even glorified this idea in a variety of books and movies made about the topic, such as the famous Jurassic Park trilogy. In science fiction, there are many ideas people have about brining the extinct back to life. Some of these theories have a grain of truth to it, but today, the idea of bringing back a species is no longer science fiction, but will likely be possible in the near future. This process is called De-Extinction. The most recent developments in genetic extraction,

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,

There are many pros to support this topic. These will explain the good things that de-extinction will provide to the environment and history.In the article should we bring back extinct animals it states, “De-extinction could offer insights into evolution and natural resources that are currently unavailable

It’s clear that a great extinction is coming from the evidence of the destruction of other species around us. The choices made by the human race have too often negatively affected the surrounding species. Tracy Wilson, the site director for HowStuffWorks.com, in an article for Animal Planet, states that

In the argument of “Should We Bring Back Extinct Species” by Joseph Bennett and Ben J. Novak it is discussed whether or not species that were once dead could be brought back to life. Scientist should not bring back extinct species.This all sounds like a real jurassic park dinosaurs could make a come back but why should scientist bring back an extinct species when we can’t even keep our still living animals alive. Joseph Bennett the assistant of biology from Carleton University states “Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But scientist already have important species-such as elephants tigers, and rhinos-that are in serious trouble.” If scientist were to concentrate on resurrecting