`` De Extinction `` Is The Recreation Of Species That Have Gone Extinct

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.

Why do humans go to such extents to protect endangered species? The same questioning applies to species brought back from extinction; it is to preserve biodiversity, to restore deserted and destroyed ecosystems, to advance the science of preventing extinctions, and to undo harm that humans have caused in the past.

back extinct animals is very controversial but we need to bring them back to restore ecosystems

In 1993, Steven Spielburg’s Jurassic Park introduced the concept of bringing extinct species back. In 2003, a team of Spanish and French scientists took Spielburg’s movie to the next level—they successfully brought back the Pyrenean ibex, a species of wild goat (93). With increasing rates of extinction, the scientific community is debating whether or not this process of de-extinction should continue to be pursued. Although it would be remarkable to visit an exhibit featuring a saber-tooth tiger or woolly mammoth, these animals went extinct for a reason; humans should not bring back extinct animals, but instead use the funding for more practical purposes.

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.

Conservation of our biodiversity not only demonstrates foresight, it protects the natural resources so vital to our own continued existence. The value of any single species to an ecosystem is immeasurable; the environment will not endure without its species, despite size or niche. These animals are not dispensable. And, they are apt to face extinction in the not too distant future, unless a resolve for their preservation is insisted by the public and enforced by governments internationally.

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.

Once humans migrated to North America and Australia, they killed or ate large animals, potentially wiping out entire species. Desertification, deforestation, erosion, and soil salinization were all human measures to build more cities. Changes in climate and diseases brought by domesticated animals were also linked to the extinction of large animals from Eurasia. The Pleistocene re-wilding of North America has two aspects: restoring past potential and preventing new extinctions with more protected populations. C. Josh Donlan from “Restoring America’s Big, Wild Animals” argues that although species such as camels, lions, and mammoths that disappeared 13,000 years ago cannot be brought back in the same form, restoring close relatives is a possibility and can potentially economically and culturally benefit ecosystems. Donlan then proceeds to explain the importance of large animals, his strategy, and challenges of reintroducing large creatures. On the other hand, Dustin R. Rubenstein, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Paul W. Sherman, and Thomas A. Gavin from “Pleistocene Park: Does Re-Wilding North America Represent Sound Conservation for the 21st Century?” assert that humans should focus on preventing the extinction of new animals since bringing back vanished species is improbable. In fact, restoring North America to its pre-human state may be detrimental to current species and ecosystems.

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

In conclusion, this paper has examined and evaluated the concepts and benefits, along with the plausible downfalls of rewilding. Undoubtedly the concerns brought forward by opponents are conclusive- the reintroduction of alien species to restore ecosystems to the state it was a hundred years ago, sounds unattainable and may possibly destroy the current ecosystems of the Earth. Besides that, it is irrefutable that calamity may surface due to the integration of wildlife into civilization. However, the Earth’s sixth mass extinction is afoot. Thus, the need to rewild is increasingly urgent, if humans continue with their selfish ways the world will see to mass extinction as its fate (“The Sixth Extinction”, 2013). Despite the risks involved in rewilding,

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).

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

The article Should Extinction Be Forever?,Restitution, Restoration, and Reviving Extinct Species by Christian Diehm, discusses the concept of de-extinction, or restoring species that were once extinct by human cause. The concept is very controversial and various authors and scientists have their views on it. Although a good idea on the outside, de-extinction has many problematic factors associated with it.