De-extinction Destroys, Not Saves. Many people think that bringing back extinct animals is the coolest and most fascinating thing in the world. Maybe it would be cool to see exotic and extinct animals walking the earth again. Maybe animals that look like nothing you’ve ever seen before, like the Woolly mammoth or the bucardo goat. However, when you think about it, is it really that cool? Based on research, it might be very hard for the animals to survive in a new environment. Do you really want all these animals to be reintroduced to earth just for them to go extinct again? Scientists should not bring back extinct animals because it is harmful to the animals being brought back, it is bad for the environment, and it impacts humans negatively. …show more content…
One example to support this is that, “When many animals became extinct, lots of diseases, viruses, and pathogens (Bacteria that can cause diseases) went extinct with them as well, so bringing them back could also bring back harmful viruses to humans.” This piece of evidence is from the article, “Pros and Cons of De-extinction,” by Biology Wise. Do you really think that we should risk our safety just to bring back extinct animals because you think it’s cool? Humans could get really sick from all of these viruses that could potentially come back and our world population could decrease greatly. There’s no reason to bring back these extinct animals if we are just going to get sick. Another example is from “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species”. Is it Worth the Cost?” by Steph Yin. This article argues that “It costs millions of dollars to resurrect a species, which is a bad decision because while it brings one species back, several others go extinct.” Dr. Bennett says, “It would be one step forward and three to eight steps back.” Based on this, it is very obvious to see that humans would be losing a lot of money for no reason. To add on, spending that much money on an extinct species is not going to help our earth. However, if we used the money to save the animals going extinct, we could save our environment, which would help us in a great way. Also, some of the animals that are going extinct might be useful to humans in some way. Lots of animals have a part in our ecosystem that keeps everything balanced and by losing many of them, our ecosystem could fall apart, impacting humans greatly. This proves that humans could be impacted by extinct animals coming back because it is important to keep our ecosystem balanced and not let it fall apart just to bring back one exotic extinct
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
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.
Species reintroduction has become a hotly debated topic, especially in the states experiencing actual reintroduction efforts. The reintroduction of the lynx into Colorado appeals to many who would like to return the area to it's pristine, pre-developed state. However, the actual costs, both financial and emotional, make this program impractical and illogical.
Finally, this article touches upon inappropriate versus appropriate pathos in scientific argument. Novak is considered too invested in bringing back the passenger pigeon, while his most other scientists involved in the field do not feel the same level of attachment. Interestedness is often considered bias, but in regards to “de-extinction”, a field that is so closely related to ethics and morals, is it dangerous to be biased on behalf of bring back animals mankind contributed to destroying? One contrasting argument that none of the scientists in this article touched upon is the desire to completely change the scientific community’s direction concerning the issue of extinction to focus its energy and resources onto preventing the extinction of species struggling to survive today.
The reintroduction of wolves into West Yellowstone National Park is detrimental to the quality of life in Yellowstone. Many people in the mainstream media have jumped on the “save the wolves” bandwagon, without knowing what the effect of the wolf on the ecosystem. It is a politically correct thing to be pro-wolf. Unfortunately the people who are making all the noise do not live in or around the park. They do not have their livelihood threatened by the wolf. They aren’t hunters, and so they don’t notice the decrease population of other animals that these large packs of wolves have diminished. The reintroduction of the Grey Wolf into West Yellowstone was devastating to the ecosystem because the wolf endangers the local wildlife, livestock, pets and even the local people’s children.
Extinction is no longer just a natural process. It is an enemy, slowly changing our world into a barren wasteland where life is as rare as a flower in the Arctic Circle's winter. The wolf, the tiger, the caribou, the elephant, the bison, the cheetah, the sequoia cactus, the redwood tree – all of these and so many more things are on the verge of disappearing from our planet forever. Extinction is the most pressing environmental issue of our time, because if it continues the way it is going without anything being done to counteract its causes and consequences, there will soon be no environment left for there to be debates about.
As species resurrection is entirely new to us, there remain a lot of doubts on the topic. With the possibility of de-extinction rising above the horizon shortly, it is in our hands to make sure if it is a good idea. In Adam Welz’s article, “De-extinction critics at Scientific American have missed the point,” he demonstrates his points that he has enough evidence to prove that skeptics’ claims against the idea of de-extinction have flaws and therefore, we should promote de-extinction. Provided that he has well-supported reasoning, I find the author’s claim credible.
In the essay “Bringing Them Back to Life” by Carl Zimmer, he writes about scientists that found a way to bring extinct animals back to life. In 2003, French and Spanish scientists revived a wild goat called a bucardo. They did this by implanting the bucardo DNA into goat eggs that were emptied of their own DNA. The implantation was unsuccessful because none of the bucardos survived. Recently, with all the new technological advances, scientists have been able to increase the effectiveness of the cloning. Although the process has been made easier, there are still multiple problems that arise with de-extinction. The author argues against de-extinction because once the species are brought back to life they run a high risk of becoming extinct again.
Modern-day genetic technology has granted mankind with the opportunity to bring back extinct species from the dead. If humans have come to possess the DNA from an extinct animal population, it is possible to create an identical clone of the animal in question, effectively “bringing it back from the dead”. Many ethical dilemmas surround the practice of de-extinction, and rightfully so. Recreating an extinct species could produce groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, generating exciting opportunities for future genetics-based research. However, there could also be monumental consequences: the newly revived, once-extinct species might destroy the ecological equilibrium of modern Earth
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.
Imagine a world where there are no animals anywhere. There are still the ordinary cows, pigs, cats, dogs, but there is not a single tiger or rhinoceros. People all around the world have been killing animals for thousands of years and they need to stop and obey the laws. Make your voice heard for the animals; they can’t speak for themselves so we need to do it for them. Other reasons on why animals are getting put on the endangered species list and or going extinct: habitat intrusion, pet trade, climate change, and disease. Please help to save the animals or they won’t be here any longer.
Humans are very quickly dominating the globe. Today, the human population is around 7 billion people. Humans are populating at a rate of almost 220,000 per day! Humans are rapidly heading towards Earth’s carrying capacity.
nuclei was then inactivated and substituted with dead nuclei from the extinct frog. Some eggs started to grow and divide to early embryo stage (a tiny ball of m...
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
In our world today we have approximately 26,021 endangered species. Endangered species are organisms that may possible become extinct. The term 'endangered species' refers to all species that fits this description. However some conservation biologists and scientists normally use the term ‘endangered species’ to refer to species that are put on the IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature)Red List. Many factors can be looked at when considering the conservation status of a species. Factors such as human threats or environmental threats can cause a species to become endangered.