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

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.

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 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 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,

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,

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.

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

This article focuses on the arguments for and against the idea of cloning or bringing back the extinct species of Woolly mammoths. The term scientists and researchers use for bringing an extinct species back to life is called de-extinction. George Church concludes that introducing these extinct mammoths into its native regions like the tundra, could possibly reduce the amount of heat released from the ancient grasses that previously grew in the Artic ecosystems. Church's ideas are directly from the followers who believe that cloning these animals and reintroducing them into the ecosystem will not only benefit humans, but also allow geneticists to protect part of the elephant family. Some opponents argue that de-extinction ethically isn't right.

Mara Grunbaum a Scholastic reporter feels, “...the idea of investing large amounts of money reviving special interest species while the natural world is dwindling as climate changes and human population soar is leaving many scientists uncomfortable.”We shouldn’t be piling up our money on projects that could be bringing back extinct animals. There just is no point. We should in the other hand help those hovering at the edge of extinction today. If we continuously waste our money upon large extinct animal, we are risking animals today to become endangered. If a long-gone species are brought back if it could become an invasive species, that upsets the current environments. Invasive species are animals that are placed outside their environment and can cause sever damage they're

When we talk about de-extinction most people today would say why do we have to do that? Right now scientists are working on a way to bring back the wooly mammoth. If that were to happen it could be a huge step towards trying to bring other things back. Also, it would help grow and repopulate the area of plants and animals that weren’t originally there.

At the end of the documentary, Charles Darwin is quoted in regards to the notion of extinction. He says, “We need not marvel at extinction. If we must marvel, let it be at our own presumption in imagining for a moment that we understand the many complex contingencies on which the existence of each species depends. The appearance of new species and old species are bound together.” This quote is in reference to the ignorance that many people share about extinction. He says a lot of people lack the full understanding of the impact of the phenomenon and the attributes associated to it. He notes specifically that there is a lack of knowledge on which species will survive and the complete livelihood of their wellbeing in the future. Charles Darwin

The rate of endangered species has increased hundredfold in the last century. The protection they have now is not stopping this crisis. Nature is beautiful, and that is an aesthetic reason to keep it, just as people preserve artistic masterpieces like the Mona Lisa or Angkor Wat. Even though nature is beautiful there are still more reasons to protect these animals. People should protect these endangered species for if they go extinct it can affect the ecosystem, the food chain could become unbalanced, and nature itself could also be affected drastically.

It seems that today it is too commonplace hearing of great, exotic, and spectacular species only to learn that they were brought down to extinction due to the direct or