The Negative Effects 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

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.

Extinction: Most species become extinct because they can’t cope with the environmental change, and also because of introduced species that turned into competitors for

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

The first reason that de-extinction should not happen is because that it would upset the ecosystem. “Many species that people want to bring back became extinct because people hunted them and ruined their habitats, argues Archer” (n.d.). This quote supports my claim because it says that people hunted the animals and destroyed habitats which most likely determines whether a animal lives or dies. If an animal does die, and when I say that I don’t mean one, I mean almost the whole population. The reason these whole populations of animals are dying off is because humans are depleting the natural resources and destroying habitats. When whole populations of animals die off that leaves a giant hole in the food chain and completely screws it up. My main reason in this paragraph was that it would upset the ecosystem. And when the food chain has a blank space where and animal should be, I’d say that probably messes up the ecosystem. Another reason that it would upset the ecosystem is

According to Stanford Researchers there are five key benefits that would arise from de-extinction. This includes scientific knowledge, technological advancement, environmental benefits, justice, and wonder. Scientific knowledge refers to the fact that de-extinction could offer insight into the evolution of species. Technological advancement would occur meaning it would be a huge step forward for genetic engineering. The environmental benefits include the facts that de-extinction could restore and fix threatened or damaged ecosystems. Many people also fell that we owe these animals justice since humans are the reason a vast majority of these animals have gone extinct in the first place. Finally, many would wonder what it would be like to see a species that was previously extinct (Discover

If scientist bring them back ,which they should not, they are just trying to reverse our mistakes. In the article it states “Just because we can bring species back from the dead, doesn't mean we should.” The society will not know whether they could resume its old ecological niche. The article states “ There's no way of knowing whether, say, a passenger pigeon would be able to resume its old ecological niche…”

In topics of scientific research, pros, in many ways, can provide reasoning to outweigh the cons. De-extinction does this in certainty of different environmental and health benefits.

The Long Now Foundation has created an outline of criteria for determining if a species is a good candidate for de-extinction. Broadly speaking, these criteria examine not only whether it is possible to create such a clone or hybrid, but whether any individuals that are successfully bred could thrive in the wild, and whether the renewal of the population would have positive or negative consequences for the modern ecosystem. Some species, like the mammoth, require an ecosystem that can only be provided for them through the managed alteration of the existing

Proponents for the cloning of extinct species argue that by reintroducing them into their past habitat they will fill the niche they left behind and positively affect the ecosystem. For example the passenger pigeon once travelled in huge flocks and in doing so caused forest disturbances, leading to forest regeneration. As these disturbances now no longer occur on a regular basis by reintroducing the pigeon into these areas the forest will be positively affected and biodiversity will increase. (The Great Passenger Pigeon comeback n.d.)

Throughout history, many scientific theories have been tested, resulting in either scientific accomplishment or failure. Accordingly, this is due to question and desire as well as true doubt. One of these present day ideas is de-extinction, the idea of bringing life back to the species that have become extinct. De-extinction has been questioned of its worth due to the progression, in like manner, the step-back it could bring in scientific research. Hence the certain reason for doubt, it does have true benefits to why it should be tested. De-extinction can not only expand in genetic diversity, but also increase in benefits regarding human health in addition to compound preservation.

Erika, as I record your discussion you made serious points on species going extinct and the de extinction procedure. Species plays a significant function in humans live and in the natural surroundings. Erika we as humans eat food and it keeps us active. Do you think species will be the same or have the same nutrients? As we know in our environment today chemicals are used to make species grow faster. It makes me question and wonder how scientists are taking our environment into their own hands. There should special laws on how and what species are to be recreated. I personally feel species should be left alone and let our creator continue to replenish our

Have you ever heard of the Holocene extinction? Well, I’m sorry to break the news to you but we are in the middle of the Sixth Great Extinction of our planet, “an event characterized by the loss of between 17,000 and 100,000 species each year” (Biodiversity, 2013). Today, I want to inform you about diseases, which is one of the lesser-known aspects of extinction and wildlife conservation. I am knowledgeable on this topic due to a considerable amount of scholarly, research, and from firsthand experience within my field of fisheries and wildlife. The diseases I will be sharing with you today include white-nose syndrome, chronic wasting disease, and chytridiomycosis.