Debunk Greely's Five Benefits For 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

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.

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

The article, The Mammoth Cometh, uses many appeals and techniques to relay the importance of de-extinction, especially in relation to Novak's passion, the passenger pigeon. Pathos are effectively used to in giving us (the audience) a personal connection with Ben Novak as the author takes us on hikes as a boy throughout the badlands near his home, “exploring a vast petrified forest,” in North Dakota. “Novak frequently came across vertebrae, phalanges and rib fragments of extinct crocodiles,” and other animals. With such a childhood it’s no wonder that at 13, Novak pledged his life to the resurrection of extinct animals. A few years later he ‘fell in love at first sight’ with passenger pigeons and has since dedicated his life to their cause. The burning passion he has for these extinct animals can't help but inspire us. He is described as “overcome by awe, sadness and the birds’ physical beauty,” and has visited 339 preserved passenger pigeons. His solid determination in the revival and restoration of these birds is also unbelievable, trying first to become a part of a lab already sequencing passenger pigeon DNA and then, when he was not accepted, writing more than 30 times to an institute to receive a sample of a bird’s tissue to do it himself. Ultimately, he was able to partner with the other lab, but the owner expressed that she was worried “his zeal might interfere with his ability to do serious science.”

We should clone endangered and extinct animals because they can help cure diseases that we don’t know how to do today or that we don't have the ability to do today. It is a good idea to clone animals because

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

Extinct species should not be brought back into existence because the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. According to text 3, lines 7-10, “De-extinction intends to resurrect single, charismatic species, yet millions of species are at risk of extinction. De-extinction can only be an infinitesimal part of solving the crisis that now sees species of animals ... going extinct at a thousand times their natural rates”. Another piece of evidence is displayed in Text 4, lines 3-8, “It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and

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.

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

These will explain the bad things that de-extinction will provide to the environment and history. In the article 5 reasons we should bring animals back and 5 reasons we should not it states, “Make people less concerned about future environmental destruction.” This means people will be less concerned about it as they know they can do the same thing that they did to make them extinct in the beginning. “Wipe out other species. Just because an extinct species once had a niche in the world, doesn’t mean it does today” \a species went extinct doesn’t mean it has to be brought back in this world. Nobody needs to play god and try and fix what we already did. “Is it our moral obligation to bring back extinct species that have died off as a result of human activities like deforestation?” As a conclusion, the actions that humans did became the consequences that helped the animals go extinct and who says that as soon as these animals come back that everyone who does these things is gonna quit. For example, are we gonna stop cutting down trees are we gonna stop eating meat are we gonna become vegetarians so that animals that already had a chance can come back again? “Is it worth the time and the money to bring extinct species back?” What was said earlier these animals already had a chance, should there be money going to this scientific research or project when we could be helping the homeless or the less fortunate or we could the money to

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.

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).

Do you think de-extinction is a good idea. I don’t, and here’s why. I oppose it because it would upset the ecosystem, they would have nowhere at this point in time, and lastly, they would have to adapt to the geography and weather of today’s society because it has changed since these historic creatures were walking on this Earth.

My opinion about this issue is that cloning could be beneficial for environment and nature, but instead of cloning extinct animals, scientists should take care of endangered animals in order to safe them, and keep them alive before they

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