Is De-Extinction Worth The Cost?

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.

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.

De-Extinction should happen because it helps the environment and their society get healthy from all the extinct animals. Bringing back extinct animals such as the Wooly Mammoth could help their environment. “woolly mammoth to reintroduce to the tundra. This could repopulate the area, encouraging the revival of ancient grasslands”. Having the Mammoth reintroduced would repopulate the area by animals and plants. “The Mammoth could slow the rate of melting permafrost and, therefore, reduce carbon emissions”. The Mammoth could slow down the rate of melting in the tundra because of how they act and because they are frozen solid in big ice blocks.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

De-extinction offers the possibility for extinct species to be brought back to life by reproductive cloning. Critics argue that de-extinction will reduce the will of society to protect endangered species, as well as harm the existing ecosystem upon species’ reintroduction. However, supporters argue that many species would be great candidates for de-extinction and will possibly be beneficial to the ecosystem. I will argue that de-extinction should not be pursued. I will argue that reintroduction of unextinct species could cause humanity to become disinterested in protecting endangered species due to the loss of finality of extinction. Furthermore, re-introduction of extinct species into ecosystems would negatively shift the balance, and may cause endangerment and potential extinction of otherwise unharmed populations.

But in my opinion I think humans should bring back extinct species Firstly , the topic itself is pretty interesting so this will be too, if they use de extinction the scientist can bring back the passenger pigeon because our ancestors hunted it to extinction. If the scientists bring it back will do the world a good because the pigeons used the dead/dry leafs to make nest to live in and it would make less forest fires. Also

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 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

De-extinction is a process where a previously extinct species or a species with a major endangerment problem is brought back to the world. At the moment, scientists are working to bring back the passenger pigeon, which was a common species a century ago. While some say believe extinct animals should stay extinct, others believe de-extinction should be done. One species called the bucardo, a type of goat, was brought back to life for seven minutes, which has been a promising sign for those working to bring other species back, as it showed that de-extinction can be done, therefore gene editing can be a positive when it comes to de-extinction.

The reading states that safeguading of endangered species is unnatural and poses many drawbacks and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the extinction of the species should be prevented whenever possible because it has a bad consequence to the environment and refutes each of the authors' reasons.

When people hear the word “extinct,” many will immediately think of the Mesozoic Era – dinosaurs. Since dinosaurs seem to be classified with extinction, many people believe that they are one of the only animals that have ever become extinct. Sadly, this is not the case. As years pass, countless animals have become extinct, and many more are finding themselves critically endangered. The number of critically endangered animals will continue to rise, especially if people don’t give this serious cause a second thought. All animals should be protected from endangerment and extinction, because of each animal’s value to every ecosystem, the frequent disturbances of their habitats made by humans, and the significance of the Endangered Species Act.