Best writing
Argument writing prompt
Write an argumentative essay about whether scientist 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 an among ideas
• provide citations for quoted material and source ideas
• Demonstrates correct use of grammar and language appropriate to the task
Title: The Delicate Balance of De-Extinction: An Argument Against its Ongoing Pursuit
Introduction:
The concept of de-extinction, or the resurrection of extinct species through scientific advancements, has sparked considerable debate in scientific and ethical circles. While some argue that de-extinction represents a triumph of human ingenuity and provides potential benefits for ecosystems and conservation efforts, I firmly believe that scientists should halt the progress of de-extinction research due to its inherent ethical dilemmas, ecological uncertainties, and potential diversion of resources from vital conservation efforts.
Body:
I. Ethical Dilemmas:
De-extinction poses significant ethical concerns that need to be carefully considered. The process of bringing an extinct species back to life raises questions concerning the rights and welfare of these resurrected creatures. Given that they were born into an environment vastly different from their original habitat, is it morally justifiable to subject these “new” species to a potentially harsh and unfamiliar world? Moreover, the limited genetic diversity of the resurrected species can lead to weakened immune systems and a higher susceptibility to diseases. Should we condemn these creatures to a life of illness and suffering in the name of scientific progress?
Furthermore, by prioritizing de-extinction, we risk diverting limited resources away from pressing conservation efforts for currently endangered species that are on the brink of extinction. These resources could be better utilized to protect the immensely diverse range of species currently at risk, preventing their extinction in the first place rather than attempting to resurrect already lost species.
II. Ecological Uncertainties:
The intricate balance of ecosystems is a delicate web of interactions that has evolved over millions of years. Reintroducing extinct species could disrupt this balance, leading to unforeseen ecological consequences. Even if scientists manage to successfully reintroduce a species, it is impossible to accurately predict how it will interact with its contemporary counterparts, potentially causing harm to existing species and ecological stability. The re-emergence of predators may lead to a cascade of effects on prey populations, altering food chains and upsetting longstanding equilibrium.
III. Diversion of Resources:
The pursuit of de-extinction research demands extensive financial investment, time, and energy. These limited resources should be directed toward the preservation of extant species rather than toward species that have already been lost. With the ever-increasing challenges of habitat destruction, climate change, and poaching, conservationists must focus on immediate and tangible actions to safeguard the current biodiversity that sustains our ecosystems. By allocating resources to de-extinction, we risk neglecting the more pressing conservation initiatives required to preserve our rapidly depleting natural world.
Counterargument and Refutation:
One counterargument contends that de-extinction efforts could serve as a powerful tool to reverse the damage inflicted upon ecosystems and aid in the restoration of habitats. However, the argument fails to acknowledge that the resurrection of extinct species does not address the underlying issues responsible for their disappearance. Environmental degradation, loss of habitats, and climate change are the fundamental causes of species extinction – problems which can only be mitigated through comprehensive conservation efforts. By focusing on de-extinction, we are merely treating the symptoms of a much larger problem and potentially diverting attention and resources from tackling its root causes.
Conclusion:
While the allure of resurrecting extinct species captivates the imagination, the ethical dilemmas, ecological uncertainties, and diversion of resources associated with de-extinction justify the cessation of its pursuit. Instead, scientists, policymakers, and conservationists must concentrate on preserving existing biodiversity, combating habitat destruction, and addressing the precise challenges that drive species to the brink of extinction. Let us prioritize the protection and conservation of our fragile natural world before embarking on journeys that may foray into realms of questionable ethics and unpredictable ecological consequences.