Bringing Them Back to Life, an article written by Carl Zimmer for National Geographic April 2013 edition, discusses the possibilities in modern science to clone and revive species that have been driven to extinction in the past ten thousand years (445). Throughout this article, the author makes use of the rhetorical devices logos, ethos, and pathos to argue to an audience that humans have an obligation to revive species which have been driven to extinction directly due to human influences. Though the author acknowledges the benefits of species revival, and attempts to rebut his own arguments, the author’s use of fallacies takes away from the credibility of the article.
The role of ethics in modern genetic species revival is an arguable topic which takes on different stances depending upon who the author’s audiences are. In this piece, the author’s primary audience would be people who share the belief that it is ethical to revive such species. These people could include scientist, conservationists, and/or government officials because of their direct correlation to efforts similar to those that the author describes. Though there are people share the author’s beliefs, the secondary audience to this piece would include those who disagree with the author’s claim. People such as scientists, and government officials could also fall into this category, as they may disagree with the author’s claim. As a tertiary audience, the general pubic could be considered because of either their agreement, disagreement, or neutrality on the author’s claim that it is the ethical responsibility of humans to revive species which have become extinct directly due to human influence.
Arguing his claim that humans have an obligation to revi...
... middle of paper ...
...e author’s established credibility through the use of ethos. Through the use of appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos, the author attempts support his claim that humans have an obligation to revive species which have been driven to extinction directly due to human influences. Though the author establishes his credibility to the audiences in agreement with his claim , the author’s use of fallacies within his arguments proves that the article lacks credibility. Therefore, the argument that humans have an obligation to revive species which have been driven to extinction directly due to human influences is ineffective and not a credible argument.
Works Cited
Zimmer, Carl. "Bringing Them Back to Life." Good Reasons With Contemporary Arguments. 6th ed. Ed. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. San Francisco: Pearson, 2014. 445-451. Pearson eText. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
“If you want to think about why humans are so dangerous to other species, you can picture a poacher in Africa carrying and Ak-47/ better still, you can picture yourself, holding a book on your lap” (Kolbert 266). This excerpt alone sets up the dark narrative that lies within The Sixth Extinction. It is uncomfortable to think about the impact that humans have on the environment on a global scale; however, it is nearly unbearable to recognize individual actions such as reading a book, directly contribute to the devastation of the earth.
Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007
Project 3: Elizabeth Kolbert: The Sixth Extinction Rhetorical Analysis. Human beings are one of the most interesting species currently existing. Because our higher intelligence compared to animals and the progression we have made over the years, we have existed, we have caused a massive change in our planet. When Elizabeth Kolbert wrote her nonfiction research book, “The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History”, her argument is about how humanity has caused the extinction of multiple animals and could possibly be extinct using the topoi, ethos, logos, and pathos. The most important detail in any author’s writing is their credibility.
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...
Some see only the negatives, while some refuse to see anything other than the positives. Through these debates however, many scientists have been able to test their hypothesis and discover more advancements in bioengineering. The tests done have both supported and opposed different claims about the process itself. Scientists and Humanitarians alike argue that it’s all about “..desire, on the part of many people, to see living examples of extinct animals (or plants)...” (Document 1, Lines 22-23).
The difference between right and wrong is not always perfectly clear. A long-standing part of cultures across the world, zoological and animal parks have been around for hundreds of years. While in the past concerns and issues regarding the ethical problems zoos seem to impose were less prominent, in recent times the rise of animal rights activist groups and new generational values have influenced the way people view these parks. Critics believe that zoos are an unnatural habitat for animals and force them to live in captivity, having a negative impact on their health. Yet, there are still many remaining who fully support zoos, citing business and educational reasons. Some supporters even acknowledge the ethical problems zoos face, but choose
In spite of the overwhelming amount of negative speculation, the practice of de-extinction might potentially produce some positive ramifications. According to Stewart Brand, a writer for National Geographic, humans should bring back extinct species “to preserve biodiversity, to restore diminished ecosystems...and to undo harm that humans have caused in the past.” If humans were to tamper with nature and bring back an extinct animal, desolate ecosystems which previously thrived, such as deserted islands, could be partially restored through their
Pimm, Stuart “Opinion: The Case of Species Revival”, news.nationalgeographic.com, 13 March 2013, 20 May 2014
Humans are destructive. Not a lot of us think about how what we do affects the world around us. We almost act like we are the only ones on this planet. We go around polluting and destroying our world with no regard for our actions. The things that live out in the wild are paying the price for it. Every day that passes there is another animal or plant that is placed on an endangered list. This is happening at an alarming rate. Because of man’s desire to expand and conquer their surroundings, there are animals and plants that are on the brink of extinction that will not be around for our kids and future generations to enjoy if something is not done about it now. This problem has been going on for hundreds of years. There are animals and plants that can only been seen in paintings or early photography. It is because of our early ancestors that we have this problem today and we have to do more to prevent more animals and plants from disappearing forever.
In the world where people live in is an enormous responsibility but also the greatest gift that people need to cherish and protect. The human race needs to step up and voice not only their concerns, but the concerns of all the animals endangered or not. 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?”
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.
Scientists have found that, as a result of human activity, the variation of life is decreasing at an alarming rate. Another large issue connecting to the decline of biodiversity is overexploitation. “Overexploitation is the over use of wildlife and plant species by people for food, clothing,
I will argue that it is a better option for humans to not accept the doctrine of Animal Rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal Rights can be limiting to the advancement of human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal Rights. Finally, Animal Rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining the ecosystem. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.
Animals are used for people 's entertainment or own benefits, but the question is what benefits do they get? Do they even get any? This paper tells about the things animals go through to help or just entertain us in life. For example the tiny cramped places animals are forced into. If the animals don 't perform well in zoos or circuses a lot of times they simple won 't feed them. The owners beating them for nothing. Lastly experiments on them and they can not even defend themselves. Animals should not be used for human benefit. Using animals for any kind of entertainment or experiment can be considered against the law especially if they are put in poor conditions and harmed. Animals have rights that should be taken seriously. Animals also have