Jurassic Park took everyone in awe when they saw the cloning of extinct dinosaurs. Today, scientists all around the world are starting to clone extinct animals. They already cloned an extinct mountain, but it only lived a few minutes. The real question is, should we? I believe we should not bring back/ clone extinct animals. First off, the de-extinct species can become intrusive to the animals now on Earth. For example, in Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs were loose and were intrusive on the other species. They weren’t used to the conditions and went back to what they knew from their time. The text from an article says, “De-extinct species would be alien and invasive. Their habitats and food sources have changed.” What would they eat? Where would …show more content…
An example from the text states, “The birds went extinct in 1914 due to overhunting.” Their cause of extinction was overhunting, so the hunters will likely kill them off again. Another passage says, “But we have to remind ourselves that extinction, for now and likely for the near future is final, the end, forever.” Even though we bring them back, they will most likely go extinct again due to the reasons they went extinct before (overhunting, disease, etc.). If they will just go extinct again, what is the point? Last, it could be harmful to our animals today. One passage says that species could carry virus with them after being brought back to life. If A rare old virus killed an animal and they brought it back, it could still be within their DNA and spread to our world today. It would be too much of a risk. An article I rea said that they would get put into the food chain and it would mess it all up. One animal may have been at the top but now another animal is. It would be too catastrophic and not fair to the animals of today. Some people might say it could help our environment. But, it could do just the opposite. As I mentioned before, the animal could become invasive. It could harm the animals by coming in and messing up how their ecosystem works. Therefore, it will be doing the opposite of helping the
Humans have driven many animals extinct, but should we bring them back is the question. Geneticists, biologists, conservationists and ethicists gathered to discuss the controversies. Some people say in doing this we are playing God, while others say we did by killing them. Other scientist say that it may be beneficial because it will add biodiversity, and medicinal properties back to the ecosystem. It is only possible to bring species back from around 10 thousand years ago. Recently scientists have vastly improved the cloning process. We can now coax adult animal cells into any type of cell, including eggs and sperm, then manipulating them into full-fledged embryos, which has led to the ideas and developments of reviving many other species including mammoths, frogs and
Christopher McCandless’ long, fascinating, but ultimately fatal journey into the wilderness of Alaska is depicted in the biography, Into the Wild, written by Jon Krakauer. Late in the of summer of 1990, a very young Christopher McCandless left his ordinary world in Annandale, Virginia to pursue a solitary life in the untamed wilds of Alaska. Many will insinuate that Christopher McCandless’ actions were childish and idiotic, but a stronger argument would be that his unconventional thinking and desire to live life on his own terms allowed him to reach self-actualization.
...and especially to the ecosystem with the killing of those animals and primarily the poisons that they use can totally destroy an ecosystem and do much more harm than good.
There are several environmental risks that go along with the success of de-extinction. Some risks are that “previously benign organisms could become pests in new environments, prove ideal reservoirs or vectors of nasty plagues, or might even harbor dangerous retroviruses in their genomes.” (Document 4, Lines 24-26). These “new” species could spread foreign diseases throughout the environment and completely kill of other species that don’t have the genetic makeup or immune systems to survive, which is a major risk to the human race as
There is a common misunderstanding that invasive species have to come from another country. In fact, an invasive species does not have to be a “foreigner”. For example, lake trout, which are native to the Great Lakes, are considered to be an invasive species in Yellowstone Lake because of their threat to indigenous cutthroat trout. Normally, an ecosystem has many checks and balances that limit the population growth of any one particular species. The correct number of carnivores, herbivores, parasites, and bacteria together create a complicated yet balanced web of life. Every species in this web need to fight for its own food source, living space and survival. However, with the introduction of non-native species, the checks and balances are broken. In many cases, there is no existing predator in the invaded ecosystem to prevent the alien species from expanding. Therefore, they ...
is also the fact that would hunting these animals, really help take care of the problem or would it
Invasive species are organisms not native to an environment that cause harm. Invasive species typically disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. This species grows, reproduces, or spreads quickly. If an invasive species is introduced to an environment, then it would result in a trophic cascade because it would disrupt various levels of the food chain.
Their findings contributed to a further explanation of the definition of an invasive species. It was concluded that invasive species are detrimental to the environment that they are invading. Jackson (2015) mentioned that negative relationships among invaders are a particular concern since it is possible that both of the invasive species would need to be controlled in order for an area to rebound after invasion. Hoopes et al. (2013) concluded that native species on island refuges are more likely to be come extinct during an invasion compared to those of mainland refuges. These results also help to confirm the importance of understanding invasive species from a conservation point of view since invasive species are a major threat to native populations in their
Who wouldn’t want to see a Wooly Mammoth traipsing across the tundra, or see witness and laugh at the odd sized Dodo Bird? Although the spectacle of witnessing such animals is certainly fascinating, it is this attitude that makes the practice of de-extinction, in my opinion, morally incorrect. Reviving a species solely for entertainment purposes is inhumane. And due to the fact that releasing a revived species into the wild could be disastrous, the animals would have to reside in zoos, where humans could gawk at them for the rest of their lives. And if they escaped, well, we might have a Jurassic Park situation in our
The invasive species may wipe out the native inhabitants of the ecosystem. With there being a new predictor previous predator may now have a competition for food. Overall it may result in poor health for the ecosystem. With the invasive problem continuing extinction could even occur for the native inhabitants.
But the overlying issue is that there needs to be greater effort put forth to truly help these species’ populations to become stable once again. The endangered species act needs to follow their original goal of
De-extinction is a process that has been experimented with for many years, but has never been completely successful. The ethics and consequences of this idea have been questioned but, de-extinction has the potential to be truly helpful to humans and the environment, and many of the scenarios that people think could happen, are actually impossible. To actually revive a species, there are certain conditions that must be met, and the terrible situations that people think could happen, are unable to actually occur because of the lack of . Bringing species back that are beneficial to the environment could preserve biodiversity, restore diminished ecosystems, advance the science of preventing extinctions, and undo the harm that people have caused in the past. The true potential of the revival of species cannot be realized because people overdramatize the effects and possible outcomes. Once we realize and understand how beneficial the process of de-extinction can be we can better improve our world, our lives, and our ecosystems.
Zootopia is a great fiction movie that is not only great for children but also great for adults. Different people and critics thought different things when they heard about the trailer the trailer coming out. The audience they were trying to catch were both kids and adults. Since it is a Disney movie, they were most likely aiming for kids. Here are what people had to say about the trailer and how it appeals to us and certain people.
Engage: I will start with a question. How can we find out about our Earth’s past? We will be creating a KLW chart to find out what they know about fossils. I will show a video about what fossils mean. Then I will ask the students what they learn from the video. What is a fossil? Are fossils just animals? I will pass a bag to each group and they must try to figure out what kind of mold fossil it is. It could be an animal or a plant. What do you notice about this fossil?
When a species dies the earth has more room to form and evolve a new species. Scientists are still unsure of what really happened and why these mass extinctions occur, they call them “unsolved mysteries. Although volcanic eruptions and large asteroids and comets are used as explanations to mass extinctions Both disasters would lead to a dirty environment, having a bunch of debri in the air.