Juxtaposing Viewpoints on Genetic Species Revival

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

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

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.

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

Since their discovery more than a century ago, the Neanderthals have hovered over the minds and have baffled the best-laid theories of paleoanthropologists. They seem to fit in the general scheme of human evolution, and yet they’re misfits. (Jurmain, Kilgore, Trevathan and Ciochon. p.367) In a way they are like us the modern Homo sapiens but yet are a very different species. But the real question that needs to be answered is “why the Neanderthals were considered a different species than the Homo sapiens and what made them go extinct?”

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,

Chapter 2: In chapter two of The Sixth Extinction the book explains how extinction is one of the first scientific concepts that children learn in school. Also, it talks about how children in the modern times know more about extinction than scientists did hundreds of years ago. Scientists first theorized the concept of extinction in the late 18th century. In this chapter the book also talked about how a naturalist named Georges Cuvier studied the fossils of an extinct animal called the American Mastodon, or Mammut Americanum, and decided that this creature, like many others, must have all died in the past. In his lifetime, many of Cuvier’s ideas about extinction were harshly criticized, but now, hundreds of years later, Cuvier is praised for

The surviving species with the right amount of traits take advantage of these niches and live in them. This is called adaptive radiation. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/120901_afterextinction

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).

Evolution and extinction are both concepts Elizabeth Kolbert introduce in her book The Sixth Extinction. The way she introduces the concepts is by telling the story of how the the concepts came to be. One reason humans should have a special status is because we don't just kill other species for nutrition we exploit them. “Over the next several decades, other uses for the great uses for the auk were found besides “sustentation”” (Kolbert 60).

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.

Speciesism is a concept that has been around for a very long time. Peter Singer describes speciesism as “prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interest of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species”. This concept goes back as far as only men having rights and African American’s not even considered people. Over the years, much of the world has demonstrated a greater sense of equality and women and African Americans now have the same rights as the average white male. The physical differences between these people are obvious: sex and skin colour. There is an even bigger difference between these and non-human animals but you cannot judge ones functioning ability based on the physical appearance. There are some major

Evans discusses the ethical issues cloning extinct species and in addition show may examples of extinct species or soon to be extinct that are in the process of research. This scholarly article relates to most of my sources because it discusses the issues within each species that some of my other resources talk about. Relating sources with further my understanding of the cloning extinct species topic.

Throughout history, many scientific theories have been tested, resulting in either scientific accomplishment or failure. Accordingly, this is due to question and desire as well as true doubt. One of these present day ideas is de-extinction, the idea of bringing life back to the species that have become extinct. De-extinction has been questioned of its worth due to the progression, in like manner, the step-back it could bring in scientific research. Hence the certain reason for doubt, it does have true benefits to why it should be tested. De-extinction can not only expand in genetic diversity, but also increase in benefits regarding human health in addition to compound preservation.

"5 Reasons To Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To) - D-Brief". D-brief. N.p., 2013. Web. 26 May 2016.