Pros And Cons Of 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

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

Some supporters of de-extinction believe it to be reasonable for reviving recently extinct species as a last resort in their conservation. However, it is a common belief among critics that it is of greater import to protect endangered species and reduce human impact so as to prevent extinction. Shapiro, a supporter of de-extinction, argues that de-extinction should not compete for funding with measures for protection of endangered species. However, she argues that both extinct and extant species have valuable roles in maintenance of the ecosystem (2015, p. 195). In the same paper, she admits that fears for an increase in the rate of extinction are valid for

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.

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,

Initially, like some teenagers in my class, the interest in genetic engineering was nothing more than a fad. My classmates would chatter for a few moments about the subject of de-extinction. But, the topic disappeared into the background, replaced by pure middle school gossip. However, there was something about the concept of de-extinction that intrigued me. And, as the notion sunk in, the ideas began to flourish.How did they bring the animal back? Could we bring back other animals? Would they be different from their older counterparts? As my internal monolog of questions grew, I sought my mother for help. When asked, she stated one word,”Write.” With a smile on her face, she knew that I had begun to discover an interest. With my mother’s advice

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

De-extinction: a scientific breakthrough and a process in which humans can use genetic engineering to bring back a species that was once extinct. Despite how intriguing it is that humans can accomplish this, the act of using de-extinction to bring back different species can be detrimental to the environments that they are introduced into. Humans can control how they create and modify a species that they bring back from extinction, an example being which species they use to replicate another species and the modifications they make for it to be able to thrive. However, once they are let out into an environment, the control lessens and the species can kill off different creatures and bring diseases to others, overall having a negative effect. There is no telling what a species will do if it is brought back from extinction, especially if that particular species died off decades or centuries ago and their habitat is no longer what it once was. There would be a chance that they would be brought back from extinction only to go extinct again. De-extinction should be avoided because there are too many risks such as costs, diseases, and the ideology that any species can come back after going extinct.

“Extinction means having no living representatives, having died out” (Dictionary.Com). We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago” (Center for Biological Diversity). Among all the species, there are still animals that have a hope of living the next generation. Despite being threatened they are not endangered. The orca whale, commonly known as the killer whale is a prime example. To date approximately 50,000 orca populations thrive though out the world. Previously the world wide estimate was double that, at 100,000 (Kirby). It has been found in resent studies that the orca population is decreasing due to many hardships they face such as toxins, captivity, and depletion of food.

According to another article called “5 Reasons To Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)” by Breanna Draxler, “De-extinction could be a big step forward for genetic engineering.” This means that if scientist can modify DNA to bring back extinct animals, it can help them achieve more with this great accomplishments. Furthermore, according to “Should We Bring Extinct Species Back From The Dead?” by David Shultz, “For decades the notion of “de-extinction” hovered on the scientific fringes, with new advances in genetic engineering.” To explain, when scientist were trying to find out how to bring extinct animals back to life, they discovered new things in genetic engineering that got them one step closer to actually modifying DNA and bringing back extinct animals. So the scientist were being very clever for trying. In addition, according to David Shultz, “researchers believe that it’s time to start thinking seriously about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones would do the most good for the ecosystems they left behind.” To explain, it shows here that scientist are being clever by thinking about which animals they should bring back and which ones they shouldn’t. Because they do need some of the animals to come back to life and help out the ecosystems. But others dont need to come back or shouldn’t come back because they could be a waste of time to the scientist or they could just be very

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.

Not to mention “...both groups emphasized that climate change would play an increasing role in species decline…” (Gilman). Climate change is still a controversial topic to some, but many scientists have proven that it’s true. In fact, Neil Degrasse Tyson has given evidence to prove its truth and already informed the world that it’s too late to fix people’s mistakes (Neil). The extinction of species has been caused in certain instances by climate change, which is only getting worse. People have continuously altered the environment to the point of harming other species. The human race’s tendency to destroy an environment greatly impacts the plants and animals residing there. To be more specific, “Human destruction of animal and plant habitat...appear to be having a major impact on extinction rates” (Wilson). Environmental degradation and habitat destruction are both key players in the extinction of many world species. The impact people have had on the environment is much bigger than most anticipate, as they both destroy and intervene with the environment.

Overpopulating animals that were repressed by the decimated species. The now overpopulated species over eats their food supply, killing it off or very nearly. The natural habitat has now been ruined.