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

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.

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.

Long-term survival of a species depends on its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Murphy, 1994). Genetic diversity within a species, which has taken 3.5 billion years to evolve, makes adaptations to these changing environments possible. Unfortunately, the rate of extinction of genetically diverse organisms is rapidly increasing, thus reducing this needed biodiversity, largely due to the human impacts of development and expansion. What was an average of one extinction per year before is now one extinction per hour and extinct species numbers are expected to reach approximately one million by the year 2000 (WWW site, Bio 65). As a result governmental and societal action must

In a world that we, as humans, have begun to destroy and shape for the worse, there is still so much that we are oblivious to. From the illegal endangered animal trade to harmful CO2 and methane, Racing Extinction has revealed to both myself and society the constantly ticking clock that is Earth.

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

Initially, like some teenagers in my class, the interest in genetic engineering was nothing more than a fad. My classmates would chatter for a few moments about the subject of de-extinction. But, the topic disappeared into the background, replaced by pure middle school gossip. However, there was something about the concept of de-extinction that intrigued me. And, as the notion sunk in, the ideas began to flourish.How did they bring the animal back? Could we bring back other animals? Would they be different from their older counterparts? As my internal monolog of questions grew, I sought my mother for help. When asked, she stated one word,”Write.” With a smile on her face, she knew that I had begun to discover an interest. With my mother’s advice

De-extinction: a scientific breakthrough and a process in which humans can use genetic engineering to bring back a species that was once extinct. Despite how intriguing it is that humans can accomplish this, the act of using de-extinction to bring back different species can be detrimental to the environments that they are introduced into. Humans can control how they create and modify a species that they bring back from extinction, an example being which species they use to replicate another species and the modifications they make for it to be able to thrive. However, once they are let out into an environment, the control lessens and the species can kill off different creatures and bring diseases to others, overall having a negative effect. There is no telling what a species will do if it is brought back from extinction, especially if that particular species died off decades or centuries ago and their habitat is no longer what it once was. There would be a chance that they would be brought back from extinction only to go extinct again. De-extinction should be avoided because there are too many risks such as costs, diseases, and the ideology that any species can come back after going extinct.

Bill Freedmen, author of “Endangered Species—Human Causes Of Extinction and Endangerment” notes, “scientists approximate that present extinction rates are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the average natural extinction rate.” These distressing numbers should be acted upon to save the endangered species and avoid the catastrophic change to this planet if these species were to become extinct. In order to produce change, people need to recognize that habitat loss, climate change, and poaching are all factors in why our animal species are going extinct.

In the late 1700’s, French naturalist Georges Cuvier proposed a preposterous hypothesis: some species had not only become exceedingly rare, but had in fact died off entirely, a claim that contradicted scientists and churches across the world. Since Cuvier’s bold conjecture, scientists have coined the term “extinction” to describe this ongoing action, and now deem the process completely natural. As knowledge of paleontology and geology expanded, other researchers uncovered further details and amassed a colossal amount of information pertaining to extinction, including evidence revealing five biological catastrophes known as the “Big Five” mass extinctions. The disappearance of 50 to 75% of all species on earth characterize these types of events.

De-extinction is the process of creating an organism which is a member of or resemble an extinct species. De-extinction I personally do not approve. I believe if the environment is left alone, it would not be a cause for de-extinction everything would reproduce on its own. Species has

De-extinction has the capability of helping the environment, helping the world’s biodiversity, and quite possibly helping the economy. There are many options that are available through de-extinction and the world has the possibility of becoming a greater place through it. Living has become a goal for many species simply because extinction has become a larger threat for those many species. The Earth’s ecosystems are capable of rebirth and returning to the way they used to be. Through de-extinction the world can grow and become something it used to be. It was a clean, open, free world with opportunities in medicine, trade, and many other things. Through the years, humans have become the enemy of the world itself. “Conservation is about the ecosystems that species define and on which they depend” ( Pimm 10). De-extinction is a way for the biodiversity to be corrected from the many mistakes we’ve made in the past. Life will always find a

Christian Diehm wrote many journal articles, and showed his intelligence through his writing, and education. He achieved several awards, and is an inspiration to scientists across the world. The article that will be discussed today is Should Extinction be Forever? Restitution, Restoration, and Reviving Extinct Species by Christian Diehm. This article is about reversing the plant extinction, or ‘de-extinction’, and how to further this project. This process means that when human damages, or kills an organism they owe restitution towards that species, or a relative of theirs. There are benefits to this design, and there are portions that would not add up if all followed. There are many people who have contributed towards this concept of de-extinction, these people are the ones who have shaped the future for us. This concept of restitution is a good thought in speculation, but there are too many problems with the execution.

The article begins with a brief introduction as to what de-extinction projects consist of, saying that, “[“De-extinction”] projects propose to re-create or “resurrect” extinct species” (Page 131). It is later stated that “Such “de-extinction” projects are complicated, costly, and tremendously difficult. The author also raises a host of challenging philosophical and ethical questions, the most basic of which is whether or not they ought to be pursued at all. The thylacine, or better known as the Tasmanian tiger, is introduced with a story about their extinction, and how they became extinct. Most believed that they would stay extinct forever, but a genome replication created a ‘replica’ of the extinct species, which made people question if extinction truly is forever.