The Article Should Extinction Be Forever? Essay

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

One important reason to bring back extinct animals is it could expand our ecosystem. A extinct frog called the Gastric Brooding Frog. This very special frog gives birth. Not only does this frog gives birth, this frog gives birth out of its mouth. And we killed it by pollution and habitat loss. In the article “Raising The Dead” by Elizabeth Kolbert says “Archer is leading the team

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

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

In nature, there are cases where species go extinct due to humans or for uncontrollable reasons. Recent scientific development has allowed a new idea called de-extinction the act of cloning extinct species using DNA samples from the past and biotechnology. However, extinct species should not be brought back to existence as the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. Another issue that arises with de-extinction is that resurrected species could become pests in their new environment.

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.

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

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.

Is De extinction worth pursuing? De-extinction is the process of combining incomplete genomes into one complete gene. Once that process is over, scientists will put that gene into an empty embryo to then give birth. This process could be used to bring back many extinct animals that could be very useful. De-extinction should be pursued because of its enviromental and technological benefits.

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

There have been five well known extinctions on this earth. The one most well known is the mass extinction that ended the dinosaurs. Mass extinction is often described as the elimination of a large number of species in a short period of time. Despite what many think, the elimination of species is almost commonplace at this point. The Earth is currently in the middle of a sixth mass extinction, and it’s been caused by the human race.

Since before the industrial evolutions humans have been pumping green house gasses—carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons— into the atmosphere however, it wasn’t until recently that the amounts being produced are shoving the Earth into a sixth extinction. While the causes of this upcoming extinction are constantly debated on it has earned itself the name Holocene extinction. This name is derived from the theory that humans are the main contributors to this extinction. To investigate the cause Elizabeth Kolbert, and American journalist and professor at Williams College, took the world on a wild and saddening journey on the human contribution to this looming extinction in her novel, The Sixth Extinction; An Unnatural History. Not only does Kolbert’s book explain how humans have contributed to global warming and its effects on life on land but also ocean acidification and how life under the sea has changed over the years.

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