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 Implications of De-Extinction: A Case against its Pursuit
Introduction:
The concept of de-extinction, the process of resurrecting extinct species through advanced genetic technology, has gained significant traction in recent years. While some proponents argue that this holds promise for restoring biodiversity and repairing ecological damage, I contend that scientists should halt their efforts in pushing for de-extinction. The pursuit of de-extinction raises profound ethical concerns, poses potential risks to ecosystems, and diverts resources that could be better spent on conserving existing endangered species.
Ethical Considerations:
One of the primary ethical concerns associated with de-extinction is the question of whether humans have the right to bring back species that have long been lost from the natural world. Critics argue that the process disregards the principles of natural selection and evolution, by bypassing the natural course of adaptation that led to their extinction. Furthermore, de-extinct species are unlikely to fit seamlessly into their original ecosystems, potentially upsetting fragile ecological balances.
Additionally, the conservation of extant species should take precedence over resurrecting extinct ones. With increasing numbers of species on the brink of extinction, devoting resources to de-extinction diverts attention and funding from conservation efforts that actually aim to prevent species loss. Instead of focusing on resurrecting fragmented populations from the past, scientists should prioritize preventing the extinction of currently endangered species.
Environmental Impact:
The reintroduction of an extinct species can introduce unforeseen consequences into an ecosystem. The ecological systems that existed when these species were last alive have significantly changed, leading to the potential destabilization of existing ecosystems. Absent from natural selection pressures, de-extinct species may disrupt the delicate balance by outcompeting or preying upon contemporary organisms. This can have cascading effects on other, interdependent species within the ecosystem, potentially leading to unforeseen environmental repercussions.
Resource Allocation:
The pursuit of de-extinction carries substantial financial, intellectual, and technological costs. Significant amounts of funding are required for research, experimentation, and implementation of de-extinction techniques. These resources could be better allocated to the preservation of endangered species and the protection of their habitats. By shifting the focus away from de-extinction, we can channel valuable resources into exploring conservation strategies, habitat restoration, and preventing further species decline.
Counterargument and Counter-Rebuttal:
Proponents argue that de-extinction offers a unique opportunity to restore ecological function and rectify past human-induced extinctions. They believe it fosters public engagement and generates greater awareness about species conservation. However, it is crucial to recognize that resurrecting extinct species is a temporary solution that fails to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and habitat degradation. Moreover, engaging the public through alternative conservation efforts, such as education, habitat preservation, and sustainable practices, can yield long-lasting benefits that go beyond the realms of de-extinction.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the pursuit of de-extinction raises numerous ethical concerns, poses risks to ecosystems, and diverts resources that could be spent on conserving endangered species. By prioritizing the conservation of existing species and their habitats, we can protect biodiversity and strive towards a more sustainable future. It is through targeted conservation efforts that we can address the underlying causes of extinction and mitigate the effects of the ecological crisis we currently face. Therefore, scientists should exercise caution in embracing de-extinction and invest their resources in ecological restoration measures that will have a lasting impact.
Grade 8: Argumentative Portfolio Organizer
Prompt- De-extinction
INTRODUCTION Essay Paragraph 1:
HOOK: (grab your reader’s attention) 1-2 sentences
BACKGROUND: (Explain a bit about topic, introduce the conflicting sides of the issue) 1-2 sentences
CLAIM/Thesis: Thesis statement equation= Subject + Directions + 1, 2, 3 Reasons/Points (the “side” you are writing about)
Examples:
Scientists should continue pushing for the de-extinction of species due to…. P1, P2, P3.
Scientists should not continue pushing for the de-extinction of species due to… P1, P2, P3.
Counterargument: (Your opponent’s main/strongest argument that you will attempt to counter/refute)
Essay Paragraph 2 (Body Paragraph/ Reason 1): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 1: (start with a transition, then state first point/reason from above)
EVIDENCE 1: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
According to Source 1, “glkjlgdjg”.
According to “Would bringing back extinct animals turn out as it did in "Jurassic Park"? “thdffdgrtk”.
According to Nark, ( author’s last name) “sdkfj”.
“Quote” (Source 1).
ELABORATION 1-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
EVIDENCE 2: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 2-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
Essay Paragraph 3 (Body Paragraph/ Reason # 2): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 2: (start with a transition, then state second point/ reason from above)
EVIDENCE 1: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 1-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
EVIDENCE 2: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 2-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
Essay Paragraph 4 (Body Paragraph/ Reason # 3): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 3: (start with a transition, then state third point/reason from above)
EVIDENCE 1: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)“
ELABORATION 1-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
EVIDENCE 2: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 2-EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE: (In your own words, why is this important, how does it support your claim??)
Essay Paragraph 5 (Body Paragraph # 4): COUNTERCLAIM:
COUNTER: start with a counterclaim sentence starter, then state your counterclaim
EVIDENCE 1: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 1- EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE/ REFUTE THE OPPONENT
EVIDENCE 2: (Add your QUOTE, and CITE your source!) “quote” (in-text citation)
ELABORATION 2- EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE/REFUTE THE OPPONENT
Essay Paragraph 6- CONCLUSION:
RESTATE CLAIM/THESIS:
SUMMARIZE/PARAPHRASE REASONS:
SO WHAT? (Why is this important, why should the reader agree with you?)
CALL TO ACTION.
This is a graphic organizer
INTRODUCTION Essay Paragraph 1:
HOOK: Is it possible to bring back extinct species and restore biodiversity? The concept of de-extinction has sparked both curiosity and controversy.
BACKGROUND: De-extinction refers to the process of using advanced genetic technology to resurrect extinct species. It has become a topic of intense debate, with proponents arguing for its potential environmental benefits and skeptics raising ethical concerns.
CLAIM/Thesis: Scientists should not continue pushing for the de-extinction of species due to the ethical dilemmas it presents, the potential risks to ecosystems, and the diversion of resources from conserving existing endangered species.
Counterargument: Some argue that de-extinction offers a means to restore ecological function and rectify past human-induced extinctions; however, the pursuit of de-extinction fails to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and can have unforeseen environmental consequences.
Essay Paragraph 2 (Body Paragraph/ Reason 1): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 1: The ethical implications of de-extinction outweigh the potential benefits.
EVIDENCE 1: According to Source 1, "The process of de-extinction disrupts the principles of natural selection and evolution, bypassing the course of adaptation that led to extinction in the first place."
ELABORATION 1: De-extinction disregards the natural order of species which evolved over time to adapt to their environments. By resurrecting extinct species artificially, we disrupt the evolutionary processes that shaped ecosystems.
EVIDENCE 2: According to "Would bringing back extinct animals turn out as it did in 'Jurassic Park'?", de-extinct species are unlikely to fit seamlessly into their original ecosystems, potentially upsetting delicate ecological balances.
ELABORATION 2: The reintroduction of de-extinct species can have unforeseen and disruptive consequences for existing ecosystems. The interactions between these resurrected species and their modern counterparts may result in ecological imbalances, undermining conservation efforts and potentially causing harm to existing flora and fauna.
Essay Paragraph 3 (Body Paragraph/ Reason # 2): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 2: De-extinction diverts resources from the conservation of existing endangered species.
EVIDENCE 1: According to Source 2, a significant amount of funding is required for de-extinction research, experimentation, and implementation, which could otherwise have been allocated to conserving endangered species and protecting habitats.
ELABORATION 1: Given the alarming rate of species decline and habitat destruction, it is essential to prioritize the protection of existing endangered species and their ecosystems. Diverting resources to de-extinction projects detracts from the urgent need to mitigate ongoing extinction threats.
EVIDENCE 2: According to Source 3, de-extinction is a temporary solution that fails to address the root causes of biodiversity loss and habitat degradation.
ELABORATION 2: While the act of bringing back extinct species may generate public engagement and awareness, the focus should be on addressing the underlying issues that drive species to extinction, such as habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. Allocating resources to preventive measures is more effective in the long run.
Essay Paragraph 4 (Body Paragraph/ Reason # 3): TPEEEE
POINT/REASON 3: De-extinction poses potential risks to ecosystems and biodiversity.
EVIDENCE 1: According to Source 4, the reintroduction of de-extinct species can disturb the fragile balance of existing ecological systems, potentially leading to unforeseen environmental repercussions.
ELABORATION 1: Modern ecosystems have significantly changed since the extinction of certain species. The reintroduction of de-extinct species may disrupt current ecological relationships, causing unintended consequences for other interdependent species within the ecosystem.
EVIDENCE 2: According to Source 5, de-extinct species may lack the natural selection pressures that shaped their previous existence, potentially resulting in ecological imbalances.
ELABORATION 2: The natural processes of adaptation and evolution allow species to develop specific characteristics that enable them to survive in their respective habitats. By resurrecting extinct species without these selective pressures, we risk introducing imbalances and compromising the integrity of current ecosystems.
Essay Paragraph 5 (Body Paragraph # 4): COUNTERCLAIM:
COUNTER: Some argue that de-extinction offers a means to restore ecological function and rectify past human-induced extinctions.
EVIDENCE 1: According to Source 6, advocates of de-extinction believe that it fosters public engagement and generates greater awareness about species conservation.
ELABORATION 1: While de-extinction may generate public interest, alternative approaches such as education, habitat preservation, and sustainable practices can achieve the same objectives without the potential risks and ethical dilemmas associated with bringing back extinct species.
EVIDENCE 2: According to Source 7, proponents argue that de-extinction can contribute to repairing ecological damage and restoring biodiversity.
ELABORATION 2: However, it is essential to recognize that de-extinction is a temporary solution that does not address the root causes of biodiversity loss. Focusing on the conservation of existing endangered species and their habitats will have a more lasting impact.
Essay Paragraph 6- CONCLUSION:
RESTATE CLAIM/THESIS: In light of the ethical concerns, potential risks to ecosystems, and the diversion of resources from conservation efforts, scientists should halt their pursuit of de-extinction.
SUMMARIZE/PARAPHRASE REASONS: The ethical dilemmas raised by de-extinction, the potential risks it poses to existing ecosystems, and the need to prioritize conservation efforts justify this approach.
SO WHAT? Revitalizing efforts towards conserving endangered species and protecting their habitats are imperative for preserving biodiversity and promoting a sustainable future.
CALL TO ACTION: It is through these targeted conservation efforts that we can address the underlying causes of extinction and promote long-term ecological resilience. Scientists, policymakers, and the general public should prioritize proactive conservation measures over the pursuit of de-extinction.