Pros And Cons Of Bringing Back 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.

I believe that they should do this due to many reasons. My first reason is that bringing Wooly Mammoths back can help reclaim a lost ecosystem. For example, the permafrost is melting, releasing greenhouse gases that have been trapped for many years, but Woolly Mammoths were essentially the creators of grasslands which will help the ecosystem and restore population of horses and other animals. Another reason scientists should do this is because Wooly Mammoths could help slow global warming. For example, the soil is colder where animals like reindeer and moose live. So if Mammoths came back they could make the soil colder. Finally, scientists should bring back Woolly Mammoths because humans simply enjoy it. Many kids are just fascinated by ice age animals like the Mammoth and the dinosaur. Therefore, scientists should bring back Woolly

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

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.

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.

A report from Recovering America’s Wildlife Crisis states, “More than 150 species have already gone extinct and about 40% of freshwater fish species are imperiled.” Animals are being killed off by the minute. Now the wildlife species are going to abolished from Earth.

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

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,

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

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

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).

For example, many humans are ignorant and will hurt these species. Although these species can be kept under careful watch, it would be inhumane to not let these animals roam free. Also, due to the world rapidly challenging, i.e. weather and a more industrial world, it would be illogical to let these extinct animals live in a world that does not meet the needs of these extinct animals. As a result, bringing back these extinct species has more cons than pros. So, this is another example that proves that it is safer to not follow through with experiments in which we have enough materials to make these experiments work because there are more cons than pros. Lastly, an example that proves that it is safer to not follow through with experiments in which humans have enough materials to do so is cloning. Humans have shown that it is possible to clone life forms, such as the infamous Dolly. However, cloning comes with many responsibilities. An example of these responsibilities that would need to be fixed are the problems that would later develop for these clones. There are health issues involved with cloning, if the cloning will actually work, which would only cause more

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