Extinction 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.

Since earth was created, there has been a natural phenomenon of species across the globe appearing and disappearing. However, in the past century, many species of animals have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Mainly, this rapidly occurring issue is caused by humans. Humans that contribute to the harmful actions that cause side effects such a pollution, deforestation, habitat loss and poaching. The natural rate of extinction pales in comparison to the extinction rate caused by all of these. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the current rate of extinction is 11,000 times greater than the natural extinction rate. Several different efforts have been made in order to stop or slow down the extinction of earth’s species. The Endangered Species Act is possibly the most successful example of these efforts. It’s main purpose is to get a commitment from the American people that they will work hand in hand to help save species that are at risk of becoming extinct and never returning. This act was put in place in 1973 and since then, no other law about the disappearance of wildlife has been quite as accomplished. Many different species that are protected under this law are either fully recovered or on their way to becoming safer. Laws like these are helping many different creatures left and right, however, at the alarming rate that they are disappearing, something else needs to be done. What people don’t seem to realize is that we depend on many of the animals that we are

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

Humans have caused another extinction, one that could possibly take us down in the process, species are exponentially going extinct because of habitat loss, species exportation, and invasive species bullying native species. On the other hand, scientists are trying to safe guard native species, keep animals in captivity whether it be for the animals well-being or for research, and widespread invasion. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting “What Everglades Pythons and Other Invasive Species are Trying to Tell Us,” by Julia Whitty and “The Sixth Extinction,” by Jeff Corwin.

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.

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.

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 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,

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

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.

There have been five well known extinctions on this earth. The one most well known is the mass extinction that ended the dinosaurs. Mass extinction is often described as the elimination of a large number of species in a short period of time. Despite what many think, the elimination of species is almost commonplace at this point. The Earth is currently in the middle of a sixth mass extinction, and it’s been caused by the human race.