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

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.

Why do humans go to such extents to protect endangered species? The same questioning applies to species brought back from extinction; it is to preserve biodiversity, to restore deserted and destroyed ecosystems, to advance the science of preventing extinctions, and to undo harm that humans have caused in the past.

By regulation of predator population and management of non-breeders through hunting our ecosystems will thrive. Allowing limited hunting with regulations on the sex and maturity of animals, and organized group hunts to rectify unnatural numbers of animals, is good for the overall population. Ruling hunting an unnecessary activity would be detrimental to the environment. Species dying off because elder alphas inhibit younger mature animals from mating and wild predators reaching uncontrollable numbers are tragedies that we as humans can prevent. Will we be responsible for extinction because we are afraid to

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

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.

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.

Once humans migrated to North America and Australia, they killed or ate large animals, potentially wiping out entire species. Desertification, deforestation, erosion, and soil salinization were all human measures to build more cities. Changes in climate and diseases brought by domesticated animals were also linked to the extinction of large animals from Eurasia. The Pleistocene re-wilding of North America has two aspects: restoring past potential and preventing new extinctions with more protected populations. C. Josh Donlan from “Restoring America’s Big, Wild Animals” argues that although species such as camels, lions, and mammoths that disappeared 13,000 years ago cannot be brought back in the same form, restoring close relatives is a possibility and can potentially economically and culturally benefit ecosystems. Donlan then proceeds to explain the importance of large animals, his strategy, and challenges of reintroducing large creatures. On the other hand, Dustin R. Rubenstein, Daniel I. Rubenstein, Paul W. Sherman, and Thomas A. Gavin from “Pleistocene Park: Does Re-Wilding North America Represent Sound Conservation for the 21st Century?” assert that humans should focus on preventing the extinction of new animals since bringing back vanished species is improbable. In fact, restoring North America to its pre-human state may be detrimental to current species and ecosystems.

Though it may seem that the issue of species revival through a means of genetic science is a modern idea, similar arguments throughout the past also hold relevance to the modern issue of genetic species revival. To better understand the issue as it becomes more prevalent, it is important to examen different perspectives that span many centuries time, generating new insight on the issue. Examining different perspectives on the perceived human influences on species extinction vs. natural law and lack of adaptability, and give a determination on the ethical implications to society and ecology from the above arguments and philosophies from each viewpoint. Through these key statements, the arguments on genetic species revival can be

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

The article Should Extinction Be Forever?,Restitution, Restoration, and Reviving Extinct Species by Christian Diehm, discusses the concept of de-extinction, or restoring species that were once extinct by human cause. The concept is very controversial and various authors and scientists have their views on it. Although a good idea on the outside, de-extinction has many problematic factors associated with it.

It’s clear that a great extinction is coming from the evidence of the destruction of other species around us. The choices made by the human race have too often negatively affected the surrounding species. Tracy Wilson, the site director for HowStuffWorks.com, in an article for Animal Planet, states that

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