Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cons of de- extinction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cons of de- extinction
As humans pollute the Earth on a daily basis, some want to de-extinct animals—bringing back animals through scientific processes—however, results of this would be unpredictable and costly. De-extinction has many pros and cons. For instance, de-extinction is beneficial because it lets us study more about how those animals lived and, in a way, be payback for our reckless and unthoughtful actions back then. Yet, it can be consequential because the process costs much more than current attempts to protect endangered species, and there is no assurance that the process will have a positive outcome.
Initially, de-extinction, a process by which animals are resurrected, is a possible resolution for our irreversible actions towards animals. De-extinction
…show more content…
Liza In the presence of de-extinction, some questions that are raised are: where will they [resurrected species] go and will they be invasive species? Lester, a reporter for the Ecological Society of America, claims that due to pollution, it would be harder for de-extinct animals to survive in this day and age. All pollution has been a result of humans because "we’ve poured huge amounts of nutrients and toxins into the landscape" (paragraph 7). Furthermore, the cost of de-extinction is so great that it can be obsolete. For example, a wooly mammoth would cost about $10,000,000 just to develop the mammoth including materials and equipment (Wade paragraph 1). To add on, before extinction, there were about 500 to 1,000 mammoths. First, we would have to multiply the 500 to the $10 million, which is about $5 billion. Also, to find the cost of protecting resurrected species, we would need to find the cost of protecting elephants, their close relative (Shultz paragraph 3). One elephant costs about $109,257 times the 500 and add it to the $5 billion prior costs. Compared to the $1.7 billion dollars spent on endangered species, de-extinction is too expensive just for one species (Platt paragraph 2). As a result, de-extinction may have positive and/or negative side effects the are unpredictable and
...rupt native species and ecosystem hence making the restoration of both evolutional and ecological potential almost impossible. Whereas Donlan (2005) concluded that re-wilding North American is the best conservation strategy to the African and Asian threatened megafauna, meanwhile re-wilding will restores the evolutionary and ecological potentials in the process. In my point of view, Pleistocene re-wilding must not be implemented simply because the introduced species might fail to adapt to the new environment. High costs and disease outbreak are another challenge that can’t be ignored.
The eradication of species numbers average at a toll close to one hundred percent of earths total living creatures. “It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct” (Sahney, and Benton 759). Not only where marine and terrestrial species effected but this catastrophic event is the only recogni...
Long-term survival of a species depends on its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Murphy, 1994). Genetic diversity within a species, which has taken 3.5 billion years to evolve, makes adaptations to these changing environments possible. Unfortunately, the rate of extinction of genetically diverse organisms is rapidly increasing, thus reducing this needed biodiversity, largely due to the human impacts of development and expansion. What was an average of one extinction per year before is now one extinction per hour and extinct species numbers are expected to reach approximately one million by the year 2000 (WWW site, Bio 65). As a result governmental and societal action must be taken immediately!
considered for the process of de-extinction. Some of the questions asked when viewing an animal as a candidate for de-extinction are as follows. Has it been extinct for less than 800k years? Is there enough DNA for sequencing? Does it have a sufficient habitat for it to thrive? The answers to these questions are all determining factors as to whether an extinct animal has the possibility to be brought back (Revive Restore).
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
Extinction is when the birth rate fails to keep up with the death rate, it is
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.
Any species which fall into the categories vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered are considered to be at risk of extinction. Robert Redford said “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security defense of our resource’s because it’s just as important as defense abroad otherwise what is there to defend?” People should all take the environment more seriously and protect the future for those to come. It’s our responsibility to ensure that the children to come may enjoy all of earth’s beauty, and not through old issues of National Geographic’s.
Australian researches have made major steps towards bringing frog that was extinct in 1983 back to life. Although the procedure of de-extinction is much more complex than cloning living animals. A group of scientists (Lazarus Project team) believe humans have the skill and obligation to repair the damage they have done to the world, which has caused numerous species to die out.
According to World WildLife Fund, many ecosystems around the world are being destroyed, eliminating many plant and animal species that inhabit them (“Pollution”).
Did you know that more than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct? According to Pandey, the author of Humans Pushing Marine Life toward ‘Major Extinction’, nearly 10,000 species go extinct each year, and this rate is estimated to be 1,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate (1). Human beings are causing irreversible damage to the oceans and their wildlife, which is being led by two major reasons: Commercial fishing or over-fishing, which damaged the marine environment and caused a loss in the marine life diversity, and pollution, which is a primary way of the extinction causes that drastically modifies the marine life habitat. As a result of the commercial fishing and pollution, many of the marine species will start disappearing of the oceans. Briggs emphasizes that over-fishing “has induced population collapses in many species. So instead of having less than a hundred species at risk, as was the case some 30-40 years ago, there are now a thousand or more (10).”
Various plant and animal species depend on each other for what each offers and these diverse species ensures natural sustainability for all life forms. A healthy and solid biodiversity can recover itself from a variety of disasters. It is estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be. Therefore, there is an urgent need, not only to manage and conserve the biotic wealth, but also restore the degraded ecosystems. c) Captivity breeding species can again be reintroduced into the wild.
The Earth is far and away the most biodiverse planet in our solar system, with about 8.7 million more unique species than the other 8 planets (UNEP). However, the Earth’s commanding lead is shrinking; not because the other planets are increasing biodiversity, but because Earth’s is decreasing. According to the World Wildlife Fund, we as a planet are losing 1,000 to 10,000 more species than the natural rate. Since the total number of species is hard to pin down, this can mean anywhere from 200 to 10,000 species going extinct per year (World Wildlife Fund). This obscenely high extinction rate is dangerous not just to ecosystems directly affected by the loss, but also creates a domino effect that circles around the globe and up and down the food
Some main causes of Endangerment are habitat loss, pollution, hunting, competition from non-native plants and animals, plant collecting, logging, clearing forests, and trading animal parts. The growing population also causes some effect because man cause most problems. Diseases or viruses are al...