De-extinction is the process of bringing back extinct species. The articles “should we bring back extinct species” by joseph Bennett, “last of his kind, “and” we might soon resurrect extinct species is it worth the cost?” by Steph Yin, they all explore the idea of de-extinction. Scientists should not be allowed to bring back extinct species because de-extinction is too expensive and it could harm the ecosystem.
De-extinction should not be allowed because it is too expensive. When money is spent on de-extinction, then it is not being spent on conservation. “A decision to spend millions on resurrecting one species is a decision to neglect others and allow them to go extinct.” Scientists only have a limited amount of funding; therefore, if they spend that money on de-extinction they will not have anything left to save existing species. The elephant Sudan would require 24 hour protection. If they take that money on de-extinction, then they won’t have enough money to protect Sudan.
…show more content…
There is only so much space in the environment. And there’s no guarantee that fundiness will bring back the species. “Conservation is vastly underfunded” paragraph 19. Many animals are becoming extinct because they are not being protected, and if they bring extinct species back, the animals that live will not have enough food to live and then the whole ecosystem will suffer from this loss. There is not a logical reason do bring the extinct animals back. Many species are endangered because lack of food, so if you bring more animals in they will go extinct. “Not be enough habitat left for them anyway” Dr.Ehrlich. If they plan to bring de-extinction back they will endanger the lives of many animals and habitats. Also it will harm the ecosystem very
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
...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 Zoological Society of London (ZSL) breeds Globally Endangered animals and then introduces them back into the wild. ZSL states that the main reasons of extinct species are: Poaching, Pollution, Climate change, and Over Population of the human race due to the need of homes, shops, hospitals and other amenities. The rain forest once encompassed four billion acres of Earth has now depleted to 2.5 billion acres of Earth within a few hundred years. Wetlands have also been destroyed and the provide drinking water for wildlife and humans. Maybe the solution to this problem is not locking away the animals that are endangered, but cracking down on the destruction of habitats. Maybe there should be places where property is restricted ...
While some people may think that they’re “protecting” the animals from extinction, that’s not something that they should be doing. That is a job for zoos and animal protection facilities. People should just visit the zoo if they want to see the animals that much
...ight think that there’s no use in bothering to tend to the environment when what damage society causes can just be reversed, which could lead to even more struggle. It’s blatantly obvious that the possibilities to trying to resurrect extinct animals and save the endangered could cause catastrophe among the world.
...leaving a little portion of land to the animals is not that bad. The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone has been very beneficial to the ecosystem. We tried to eliminate this species but in the end, we need to ask ourselves the question, do we really need to eliminate another species based on our own biases and fears? We need to look past personal gain, and leave nature to take its course.
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
I would argue that at the very least, there needs to be some form of triage implemented. The way the Endangered Species Act is currently allocating funds is mediocre at best and has many flaws. There is no denying there are limited resources so that makes efficient use of them even more important. Each of the systems of triage outlined in this paper have valid points and problematic components. Elements of each system could be combined into a nicely working plan that recovers the greatest number of species on a limited budget.
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.
Elephants are an endangered species and they should not be killed for their ivory or they will become extinct. In the article The Poaching Problem the author writes” elephant populations have declined to dangerously low levels.” At the rate that poachers are killing these innocent animal the entire species of elephants will be extinct in the year 2030! That is only twenty five years, I know that does not seem like a long time but it is going to go by fast and every one will regret killing all those poor innocent gentle creatures. In case study 483 they author writes “ During the 1970s and 1980s elephant poaching had included about 1.3 million elephants killed for their tusks.” It is hard to distinguish between legal and illegal ivory so it is sold easily.
So what is an endangered species? What is an extinct species? What has happened to cause them to become endangered or extinct? What needs to be done in order to save the endangered species from becoming extinct? Can anything be done to save them? The answer to most of these questions is not known by everyone. With all the attention that this subject gets from the government or groups that fight for the environment, it gets the same amount of disregard from the public. Many people want to help or donate but very few of those actually follow through. This is a very important subject that needs to be taken serious by the public. It needs their full attention because they are the ones that can truly make a change. People really don’t understand the concept of extinction. If somethi...
Extinction is when the birth rate fails to keep up with the death rate, it is
...later time. Though it is simply impossible to know what the ultimate effects will be on our long term survival as a species, it is important to bear in mind that, once a species has been eliminated through extinction, it cannot be brought back. So, for the overall health of our rainforests, their biodiversity, and the limitless potential contained therein, it is crucial for us, as humans, to make as honest an effort as possible at their preservation.
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.
Many of the issues of biodiversity loss can be traced back to human interaction to the environment. One of the issues is alteration and loss of habitats. A lot of this issue is based on the destruction of habitats and for the land to be used for human consumption. The land is either used up for agricultural use or for neighborhoods. Destroying habitats and building them for our own use can have a positive impact on our way of living but a negative impact on the environment. We would gain land for building land for crops and communities to be built. The habitat for the animals would be destroyed and the species local to the land would either relocate or die. There are restrictions to deforesting land and there are organizations to help protect the land.