The Possibility Of De-Extinction In The World

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

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

Extinction: A Radical History is a book published by writer, professor and activist Ashley Dawson. It was published on the 22nd of April 2016. Dawson talks about multiple broad subjects in his book like how Capitalism is the main source of mass extinction. By doing so, he takes into account the lengthy history of the Homo Sapiens species, their activities and their discoveries and how us, humans, have affected today’s biodiversity, and probably the future of our planet Earth. He also offers solutions but are they realistically possible? Today, we no longer face natural risks like asteroids and comets. As Dawson states we now face anthropogenic risks like climate change and biodiversity loss which leads to a change in the earth’s ecosystem.

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

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.

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 Opinion: The case against species revival it states, “De-extinction is worse than a waste: By setting up the expectation that biotechnology can repair the damage we’re doing to the planet's Biodiversity its extremely harmful for two kind of political reasons.” If we continue with the de-extinction with the de-extinction it would be worse than a waste and they aren't for sure but they believe that biotechnology can repair these

De-extinction could bring back animals that bring good qualities to their ecosystem and have a purpose that was lost. “Even if deep de-extinction cannot replace lost values, it may nevertheless create value.” (Sandler 356) It could bring about advances in many fields of research. A huge point some scientist bring up is the injustice of humans wiping them out. The scientist say we have a duty to bring

Although data for terrestrial species is not as complete as for marine species, there is evidence to show that terrestrial life was also severely impacted. The End Permian Extinction is the only one known to have caused the mass extinction of insects; 8 out of the 27 insect orders known to have persisted during the early Phanerozoic eon did not survive past the Permian-Triassic

People have understood the above risks, and rather than saddling and debilitating natures holds, we have figured out how to safeguard their hereditary data for their long haul survival and our own particular prosperity. One animal groups getting to be wiped out can thump the equalization of a biological community and have a hindering thump on

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.

De-extinction, or resurrection biology, or species revivalism is the process of creating an organism, which is either a member of, or resembles an extinct species, or breeding population of such organisms. Carl Zimmer is a popular science writer and blogger who has specialized in the topics of evolution and parasites. In Carl Zimmers’ article he writes about “the history of life for a living” and longs to go back in time. When writing this he gives the readers a suggested time frame dating back to 520 million years ago. In his Ted Talk as well he elaborates on the different eras and explain what each one entails. Traveling back in time would be amazing, there would be so many new life to experience. About 100 million years ago Dinosaurs and Woolly Mammoths roamed the earth.

De-extinction is so cool but there is no asherens it will go exactly as planned.It can have so many full backs like desys and another dust bowl because of all the grass and food reward to feed these creatures and they don't care if you need that land of that grass or anything about the fall back they just want to eat.One thing is,¨Species could carry retroviruses or pathogens when brought back to life.¨They could seriously harm other species that are alive and that same virus or pathogen could mutate and harm us humans to and the very thing we tried to save ends up killing us right after we save its species.Also, ¨De-extinct species would be alien and potentially invasive...¨ Which this means that the de-extinct species could petenshely take

This journal discusses the topic of “de-extinction”, which is the recreation of species that have gone extinct. It discusses three different topics/arguments involving “de-extinction” and benefits, questions, and possible issues concerning each of the topics/arguments. The first topic is about how de-extinction is a restitution to individuals, the second being a restitution to species, and the third being a restoration of systems.

This is because individual species rely on each other and their environment. Humans impact the environment in extreme ways through construction, deforestation, carbon emissions, and agriculture (Green Living). By changing the environment to better suit our standards, we affect other species that depend on the environment to stay the way it is. This can potentially endanger many or all of the species that live in that environment. Since all species are interconnected through ecology, the extinction of one species creates a ripple effect (Biological Diversity). By forcing one species into extinction, we can force multiple other species towards