Thermodynamics: Should We Have Our Materials?

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.

Some believe bringing back extinct animals provides no purpose and may damage or harm other

For example more than 100 million animals will get killed each year from testing animals. The scientists that are testing the animals aren’t being cautious enough to protect the animals so they could still be living or so they aren’t in fear. Also some animals will be killed for school activities for the students to dissect animals such as dissecting frogs, dissecting cow eyes, and many more. (Peta)

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.

Have you ever thought about exploring space? In the text “From Packing For Mars” they discuss some reasons why we shouldn’t spend valuable resources. Even though some people think that we should spend our valuable resources, I think that we shouldn’t.

Foremost, the animal’s rights were dishonored when they are used in experiments. Humans and animals are very similar in a lot of ways, such as both humans and animals think, they behave, experience pain and they have feelings too. Therefore, animals must remain preserved with the same admiration as us humans. Even though, the animal’s rights had been dishonored when they’re being used in examination because they can’t say no. The Animals are endangered because of the tests, the tests often cause permanent damage or even death. The animals never have the option if they want to do the experiment. Animals don’t just freely give up themselves for the development for new technology. The scientist makes the animals decision for them whether they like it or not. Their decisions are made for them because they cannot tell them what they do or don’t want to happen to them. When the scientist chooses the animals destiny in their experimental environments, the animal’s rights are taken away

De-extincting animals has become a very popular topic among scientists. Some think that it is ethical, some do not. Some do not even think that it is possible to accomplish. Multiple arguments have been given by a different set of facts and beliefs. The argument that was more persuasive and better-supported was the counterpoint argument because the concrete facts and ethical reasons behind the argument are accurate.

We shouldn't spend valuable resources on exploring space. Some people could argue differently but there is evidence to back this statement up. Like we could bring new problems to the U.S., it could threaten the life of the astronauts that go up to space and the government does not have enough support from the people.

Have you ever thought about spending valuable resources on space exploration? In several stories it explains to you you about reasons why we should and should not spend valuable resources on earth. For Example some of the reasons are to spend resources on space and some are not to valuable resources on space, other stores tell you ideas what is happening if we do go deeper into thinking about spending our resources. We should not spend valuable resources on space exploration. For example, there are many reasons why we should spend money on earth before we go outer space and not know what we are doing. Another reasons is not to spend money on space is because if it don’t help us later on in the future what is the point of spending so much money if it not going to be useful in the future.

Through testing with animal research scientist have been able to create new cures and treat once thought incurable diseases. Many biomedical experiments developed treatments for anthrax, rabies, polio and smallpox, as well as developed anti-depressants, tranquilizers and antibiotics for medical use. Advocates of the opposition are hardly reasonable as their opinions are adjusted purely for emotional value. Their main argument is the fact that animal testing harms

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

In today’s modern and technologically advanced society, now more than ever science is critical to our decisions as a race and for the future. Reaching paramount societal controversy are subjects such as artificial intelligence, overpopulation, global warming, and the imminent mass extinction of many keystone species. Furthermore is the question of the extent to which humans should scientifically meddle with these situations while upholding a standard of ethics. The real question now is; Do we sacrifice order and safety for knowledge and power or cease extreme scientific advancements in favor of safety and possible prevention of failure?

Preventing existing endangered species from going extinct should proceed over reviving species already lost. Why should the world’s scientific resources be focused on reviving species, when African elephants will most likely be lost by 2020? Polar bears, giant pandas, rhinos, and snow leopards are also going extinct. But sadly, the list is so large that there are many species you may never have suspected are endangered. Although some de-extinctionists insist that the knowledge we gain from de-extinction science may help us to save current species. It is a very risky thing to do, given the terrible situation of the current mass

Each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in USA labs for biology lessons, medical training, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing.There are three main reasons why we should not continue animal testing. Animals have rights, animals will experience less pain, and scientists are becoming more desensitized every time they experiment with animals.