Persuasive Essay On De-Extinct Animals

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.

In the The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth the author talks about how to bring these extinct animals back by using DNA and how it will not only benefit us but the upcoming generations. Unlike the author in the The Case Against De-Extinction: It’s a Fascinating but Dumb Idea he says “as National Geographic photographer Joel Sartore has emphasized to me, zoos are already overwhelmed trying to breed endangered species for reintroduction and thus facing triage conundrums about which species to save and which to let go.” (Ehrlich n.pag.) So as I stated in the claim if we can`t bring back the extinct animals we should at least protect the ones that are about to go extinct and learn from our

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

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.

Summarize: The result of one species extinction could potentially be fatal to the environment. In the animal kingdom, there is a food chain. Keystone animals, are the key ingredient to the food chain. When that keystone animals goes extinct, it sets off a chain reaction on the other animal’s food source. This causes one species to flourish and another to dwindle. The environment needs a healthy checks and balance system to keep each animal population under control (Stuart, 1990 ). Humans can cause the keystone animal to become extinct and therefore, responsible for rise and decline of other species, ultimately, throwing the food chain off balance.

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.

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,

Conservations budgets are limited, assuming that the resurrection would be covered, maintaining the animals would be even more costly. A program to prevent the extinction of the Northern Rhino, will cost millions of dollars. A Wooly Mammoth would be even more because scientists know a lot of things about the Northern Rhino. Scientists are almost blind when it comes to the Wooly Mammoths. A study led by Joseph Bennett found that bringing back the Wooly Mammoth could lead to biodiversity loss rather than gain. In New Zealand, there is government funding for 11 extinct animals, and it might sacrifice triple the number of alive species. (Elena Motivans, 2017). Why would anyone want to risk the lives of our living Asian elephants when scientists don’t even know if this experiment will actually work. Spending all that money, and possibly killing another species is to big of a

In this article, the major conflict discussed is whether scientists should pursue de-extinction in the years to come. De-extinction, also referred to as resurrection biology, is the process of creating an organism that either resembles or is a member of an extinct species. Scientists are fascinated by this field, but it sparks a major conflict with the ethical implications. I found this article extremely interesting because before reading this, I had never heard about this debate. I knew that technology is constantly growing and improving, but I didn’t know scientists were even considering this. When this debate was first introduced in the article, I thought it was fascinating and that scientists should definitely pursue this. What I did not think about however, are the questions one has to consider when delving into de-extinction- Where is the money coming from? Our country alone is in tremendous debt already. How much time will all this take? And the overall question is: Is all the time and money worth it? Would our species,

There are many pros to support this topic. These will explain the good things that de-extinction will provide to the environment and history.In the article should we bring back extinct animals it states, “De-extinction could offer insights into evolution and natural resources that are currently unavailable

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