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.
“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.
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
Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007
As the human population of the world continues to increase the flora and fauna of the planet are becoming an increasingly smaller part of the picture. Environmentalist and conservationists all over the globe are working hard to find strategies and methods for the preservation of disappearing creatures and species. An increasingly popular idea that would allow for great benefits in the field of conservation became apparent in 1996 with the cloning of sheep by the name of Dolly. Since then the scientific debate on the relationship between cloning and conservation has ensued. Although the answer to that question remains on the horizon, cloning for helping endangered species is a process that may become a frequent procedure in the future.
Elliot Sober's main point in this essay is about how could justify the environmentalism theories because they have some difficulties in reasoning their objectives and solutions. He illustrates about this difficulties and then he suggests some ways that can help to reason correctly about environmental concerns. He explains his points about some philosophers theory that try to give reasons about preserving the species and the environment. He tries to clarify about the ignorance argument that this argument suggests we must preserve every endangered species that it can be useful for human. Sober criticizes this opinion because sometimes a valuable species was known not to be valuable previously. Therefore he suggests that we should not because of human preference try to keep a species or keep not. The Slippery Slope Argument, that environmentalists affirm that every extinction is important significantly because it is possible arguing that none of species can be important that much then it will turn to a slippery slope argument. Sober mentions about the fact that If we consider a value for diversity therefore each species have value so we can value diversity without overemphasizing the position of each species separately. The Appeals to What is Natural, that is about what is natural to or what is domesticated or artificial. Sober claims that this distinction is meaningless because we believe that human beings also are part of the nature and what human makes also is part of
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!
Gould argues that humans should only preserve other animals for the sake of humanity because the sheer size of time and life makes it only reasonable for humans to base our morality around human lifespans and interests. Calling on his background in paleontology he states the jarring statistic that “more than 99 percent of all species ever living have become extinct”, and that this is simply the nature of life, it is effectively impossible for humans, or any other force, to preserve every species of life (29). It is more realistic for humans to preserve life in a human manner. Humans should preserve certain species only if they can benefit humans, a form of morality that, like all other systems of right and wrong, is based around humans. In contrast, Rolston believes that humans have a duty to protect all species because each species has intrinsic value. He argues that a species as a whole has a sort of intrinsic value separate from that of its members. He quotes Mayr is stating that “species are real units of evolution” that is, the changes in a species as a whole are the most basic changes in evolution that we can record, they are something of a lifeform of their own (721). And as such they deserve to be protected as a living being. Rolston believes that only preserving species due to their utility is hardly a form of morality at all, treating species as a resource rather than as beings, or even a collection of beings, completely ignores their own value to themselves in favor of exploiting them as resources for humans. Humans should not limit the diversity of nature or put any one species about another, but each species takes priority over each individual. He argues that the humans should not be preserving species only if there would be dire circumstances otherwise, such as the possibility of human
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
One of the oft-heard arguments against reproductive cloning is that humans should not be interfering with nature or "playing god". When it comes to endangered species, I am not persuaded. For the past few millennia, and particularly the past century, humans have been the driving force behind the overwhelming majority of species' extinctions. In other words, we have already been very busy playing god.(Nicholls)
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
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.
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.
== = = Human beings are dependent on the Earth's diversity of species for our survival. Wild species play a vital role in the maintenance of the planets ecological functions, yet everyday on the planet 40-100 species become extinct.
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