Write an argumentative essay about whether scientists should or should not continue pushing for de-extinction in species. Your argumentative essay must be based on this prompt and topic, and it must incorporate ideas and evidence found in the sources provided. Use your best writing to complete an essay that is focused on your claim/position; combines evidence from multiple sources with your own elaboration to develop your ideas; rebuts at least one counterclaim with reasoning; is organized and includes transitions within and among ideas; provides citations for quoted material and source ideas; and demonstrates correct use of grammar and language appropriate to the task
Title: The Ethical Conundrum of De-Extinction: Weighing the Pros and Cons
Introduction:
The ever-advancing field of science has sparked an intriguing debate regarding the possibility of de-extinction. While some argue that de-extinct species could revitalize ecosystems and rectify past wrongs, others contend that it is unethical to play God and meddle with nature. This essay argues that scientists should proceed with caution when considering de-extinction, taking into account its potential benefits, ethical implications, and environmental impact.
Benefits of De-Extinction:
Advocates of de-extinction assert that reviving extinct species holds promising potential for ecological restoration. Bringing back lost species could help rebalance ecosystems by filling gaps left behind by their extinctions. For instance, the reintroduction of certain large herbivores could curb vegetation overgrowth, which has cascading effects on biodiversity. Additionally, de-extinction may offer valuable insights into evolutionary biology, enabling scientists to study past species and enhance our understanding of how ecosystems functioned before human intervention.
Ethical Considerations:
The de-extinction process raises profound ethical questions that must be addressed. Critics argue that it is ethically questionable to play the role of nature's arbitrator and tamper with the natural order. Engaging in de-extinction could potentially blur the boundaries between what is considered natural and artificial, usurping nature's course. Moreover, the resources and funding directed towards de-extinction could be better utilized to address ongoing conservation efforts, preventing further decline in existing endangered species.
Environmental Impact:
One of the key concerns surrounding de-extinction is its potential consequences on indigenous biodiversity. Critics posit that reintroducing previously extinct species could displace or outcompete existing ones, creating a ripple effect throughout the ecosystem. Furthermore, the ecological niches occupied by extinct species may have been filled by others in the course of evolution, making the compatibility of revived species with current ecological systems uncertain. This potential disruption to delicate ecological balances necessitates an in-depth assessment of the long-term effects before implementing de-extinction efforts.
Counterclaim and Refutation:
Opponents of de-extinction often argue that resurrecting extinct species is futile because it fails to address the root causes of extinction, such as habitat loss or climate change. They contend that resources should be focused on conserving endangered species and their habitats instead. While their reasoning is valid, it is important to note that de-extinction does not aim to replace conservation efforts, but rather complements them. The reintroduction of extinct species could foster public interest, awareness, and support for conservation initiatives, leading to a more holistic approach to environmental preservation.
Conclusion:
Scientific advancements have opened up new possibilities, including de-extinction. However, it is crucial to approach this technology with prudence and thorough consideration of its potential benefits, ethical implications, and environmental consequences. While de-extinction offers the tantalizing prospect of restoring lost species and understanding the intricate web of life, it is paramount to prioritize the conservation of existing endangered species and their habitats. Ultimately, a balanced approach combining conservation efforts and responsible de-extinction research can pave the way for a harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural world.
Source 1:
On a cold night in January, a Harvard University professor with a billowing white beard stood on stage in a theater in New York City, with an icon of the environmentalist movement beside him. Both men were staring down a problem. How could they convince their counterparts on the stage, along with the 300 people at Hunter College's Kaye Playhouse for a debate, that the world should bring back Velociraptors? Could they sway them to at least bring back an extinct pigeon? The theme song from the 1993 blockbuster "Jurassic Park" was playing in the background, chipping away at their argument before the debate even began. In the film, based on the 1990 Michael Crichton book, dinosaurs are brought back from extinction to fill a theme park. "That film took sides. The experiment blows up. People get hurt," moderator John Donvan told the crowd. "But not before actor Jeff Goldblum declares, 'Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.' And then, a dinosaur eats Jeff Goldblum." Actually, a dinosaur does not eat Goldblum's mathematician character, but chaos certainly reigns in the movie and its myriad sequels because of de-extinction. Those images are what George Church, of the billowing white beard, and Stewart Brand would need to overcome to win the debate. Church helped launch the Human Genome Project, and Brand is a founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog magazine. The Human Genome Project is a global, long-term research effort to identify and map the estimated 30,000 genes in human DNA. The official motion for the night, "Don't Bring Extinct Creatures Back to Life," was chosen by Intelligence Squared, a nonprofit that turns academic-level debates into popular live events and podcasts. Arguing for the motion were Lynn Rothschild, a scientist with NASA, and Ross MacPhee, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The two were also arguing against Church and Brand. Genetic Rescue Brand started by saying controversy around de-extinction is "made up." He wasn't saying they should resurrect meat-eating dinosaurs. Instead, he said, de-extinction could be achieved through hybrids, or animals created from living, endangered species and extinct ones, using CRISPR. The term is an acronym for a tool that has been likened to "playing God" because it allows scientists to remove and replace genes. Eventually, CRISPR could be used to boost agricultural production or to replace wildlife that's slowly disappearing. That is the goal of the Revive & Restore project, a California nonprofit co-founded by Brand that seeks to use new methods of "genetic rescue for endangered and extinct species." The group is working to reintroduce the extinct passenger pigeon into the wild. The process would remove genes from modern band-tailed pigeons and replace them with passenger-pigeon genes. Revive & Restore would like to do something similar with woolly mammoths, editing the extinct creature's genes into those of modern Asian elephants. In that case, the goal is to increase the population of endangered Asian elephants, which has declined because of a virus. "We're not just curing extinction," Brand told the audience. "The technology that de-extinction is leading the way in is now being used by us and by others to prevent extinction." In 2018, Brand and Church traveled to Siberia, where Russian scientists are attempting to re-create the grassland ecosystem where woolly mammoths once lived. As the number of mammoths declined, foliage took over grassland. To restore it, scientists have knocked down trees and shrubs and brought in plant eaters, including elk and moose, to graze and keep back the foliage. Church said mammoth-and-Asian-elephant hybrids could once again inhabit Russia. He also urged everyone to "loosen up" about the prospect of hybrids. There's a lot of hybridization that occurs in mammals, he said. "I am partially Neanderthal," he said, referring to estimates by scientists that about 20 percent of Neanderthal genes are in modern humans. Neanderthals are an extinct species of human. Jack Horner, a Montana State University scientist and adviser on the first "Jurassic Park" film, is also working on a hybrid called "chickenosaurus." No one mentioned this during the debate. A hybrid mammoth, roaming Russia today, raises all sorts of questions, Rothschild and MacPhee said. Would this hybrid be released into a world with no natural predators? How would a mammoth know how to be a mammoth without other mammoths around? "You've got all the problems of not having a mom" and not having other animals to learn from, Rothschild said. These animals "will be suffering for something that we could be solving a different way," she said. Ethics Concerns An audience member asked if someone wealthy could be moving forward with the technology, possibly for commercial purposes, while scientists were debating whether they should. Brand said there was nothing happening in the de-extinction world that had commercial purposes. MacPhee, in response, asked, "You don't think there's a future in having saber-toothed tigers that you can use for hunting purposes?" Rothschild took the argument further, wondering whether someone could attempt to de-extinct a Neanderthal for commerce or simply in the name of science. The idea, Rothschild said, was morally wrong. "We have enough trouble with humanity recognizing that we have roughly equal intellects across the races. And to purposefully re-create a species that we know is going to be inferior in some way is just asking for enormous trouble," she said. In the end, based on the votes tallied before and after the debate, more people came around to MacPhee and Rothschild's side than Church and Brand's. For once, the Jeff Goldblums won.
In a recent debate about de-extinction, George Church and Stewart Brand presented compelling arguments in favor of resurrecting extinct species. They emphasized the use of CRISPR technology to create hybrids that could restore ecosystems and prevent further extinctions. Additionally, they highlighted the potential benefits of de-extinction in terms of advancing scientific knowledge and enhancing conservation efforts. However, their opponents, Lynn Rothschild and Ross MacPhee, raised valid concerns about the ethical dilemmas and environmental consequences associated with such endeavors.
One of the main points raised by Church and Brand is the potential for de-extinction to restore ecological balance. They argued that introducing extinct species, in the form of hybrids, could help fill ecological niches and mitigate the negative impacts of human activities. They specifically cited the Revive & Restore project, which aims to reintroduce the extinct passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth into the wild. By replacing genes in modern species, these hybrids could contribute to the preservation of endangered species and ecosystems.
Furthermore, Church and Brand emphasized that de-extinction research is not solely focused on reversing extinction but also on preventing further extinctions. This technology could be used to enhance agricultural production or replace dwindling wildlife populations. By employing CRISPR, scientists have the potential to genetically modify species to adapt to changing environments, thus protecting them from extinction. This approach aligns with conservation efforts and contributes to the preservation of biodiversity.
However, Rothschild and MacPhee expressed concerns about the potential negative consequences of de-extinction. They questioned whether hybrid species, such as mammoth-and-Asian-elephant hybrids, would thrive in ecosystems lacking natural predators or other members of their species. Rothschild argued that these animals may suffer and face significant challenges without proper guidance from their own species.
Moreover, ethical concerns surrounding de-extinction were raised by Rothschild. She warned against the potential misuse of this technology for commercial purposes or to resurrect inferior species. Rothschild highlighted the importance of recognizing equality among different races and the dangers of intentionally recreating species that are known to be inferior. This moral dilemma raises questions about the ethical responsibilities scientists have when tampering with nature.
In conclusion, while the benefits of de-extinction, as presented by Church and Brand, are intriguing and hold potential for ecological restoration, it is crucial to consider the ethical implications and potential environmental disruptions. The concerns raised by Rothschild and MacPhee should not be disregarded, as the consequences of de-extinction efforts must be thoroughly evaluated. A balanced approach that takes into account the preservation of existing endangered species and ecosystems, alongside responsible and ethically conscious de-extinction research, is necessary to ensure the harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural world.