Jurassic Park Argumentative Analysis
Jurassic Park, a cult favorite, seems to be a scary work of fiction. What most do not realize is that there are efforts taking place right now to make the processes of reversing extinction a reality. This process, coined as ‘De-Extinction,’ is defined as using intact tissues of extinct animals to clone them and introduce them back into existing ecosystems. These efforts are taking place all over the world: the United States of America, Australia, Poland, and Russia. (Zimmer, 2013) This process includes taking fragmented DNA from preserved specimens, piecing the fragments together, placing the DNA in an emptied egg, and planting the egg in a female of similar lineage to the species being cloned. (Archer, 2013) The first attempt at this process was in 2003 when Spanish scientists attempted to clone the cells of the last Pyrenean ibex, Celia. The
…show more content…
clone was born and died ten minutes later, necropsy showing “that one of her lungs had grown a gigantic extra lobe as solid as a piece of liver.” (Zimmer, 2013) This endeavor has shown not only the limitations, but the possibilities of De-Extinction. Spearheaded by Stewart Brand with the help of his wife, Ryan Phelan, and Harvard biologist George Church, the De-Extinction movement gains momentum. As with most movements, there are two sides to the coin. There are those like Steward Brand and Michael Archer who support the De-Extinction movement while others like Stewart Pimm and Thom van Dooren do not support the De-Extinction movement. Along with his wife and project, Revive & Restore (through the Long Now Foundation), Stewart Brand forms the forefront of the De-Extinction movement. Brand studied biology at Stanford University and now writes books, articles, and gives speeches on a wide variety of topics in biology. He fully backs the De-extinction movement, defending it indefinitely. Brand notes in his argument, that a major problem with species as the start to become endangered is “progressive inbreeding.” The species begins “to lose fecundity… [And] the genetic diversity needed to adapt robustly.” This problem of nonexistent genetic diversity is what essentially cause the extinction of a species if the cause is not humans. Brand believes that “preventing extinction blurs over into reversing extinction in the emerging field of conservation genomics” and that the technology being made to revive these species can be used to also prevent extinction in the first place. He even mentions that “de-extinction is likely to bring new knowledge and new public involvement in preventing extinction.” Another argument made by Brand is that majority of the species that scientists are attempting to ‘revive’ serve some sort of purpose in the environment, his most mentioned being the woolly mammoth in Siberia to bring the grasslands back to the tundra. (Brand, 2014) Due to Stewart Brand’s background in biology and his reputation as a trusted speaker and author, he shows a reasonable amount of status among the De-Extinction community. This status grants him a good reputation, showing credibility. Also, due to his studies in biology, he has the ability to see, as this topic is almost entirely biology related. Although, because he is a co-founder of a large biology foundation, he may have a vested interest to keep his standing there, thus, he could be supporting this point simply to appease them.
Brand’s argument is balanced, making mention or counter arguments and responding to them appropriately. Even so, to the claims he does make, he gives little real data or evidence. He also admits the opposing opinion may have some criticisms that are indeed right. The article was written in 2014, meaning that it may be outdated, but this topic is not a fast-changing one; just because an article was written about this topic one or two years ago does not mean the ideas have changed per say.
Michael Archer is a scientist who also supports the De-Extinction efforts. Archer is a paleontologist at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He is currently working on the Lazuras project, attempting to revive the Gastric Brooding Frog, and a project trying to bring back the Tasmanian tiger. Archer’s argument centers on that “we not only have a moral obligation to see what we can do about [extinction], but … we’ve got a moral imperative to try.” He also comments on the medical benefits of bringing back certain species like the gastric brooding frog, allowing us to study how the frogs reproduce (in their stomachs). Next to these, Archer brings up the concern of some conservationists that the cloning process of the animals and the implantation of the eggs in another species could create hybrids. Archer states that this is not possible because the egg being implanted contains only the DNA placed within it, meaning the only thing that can be produced is what DNA is contained in the egg.(Archer, 2013)
Michael Archer can be given ability to see due to his studies in paleontology. This course of study allows him to understand better than most how extinct species may behave due to body structures and give him insights on how scientists can bring them back. At the same time, he is not a geneticist or a biologist so his information may be limited. His position at the University of New South Wales gives him credibility because we can be sure he has the resources to give the right information. Due to the fact that the talk was given in 2013, some of the information may be outdated.
The source itself is a speech from a TEDxTalk, which is a reliable source of information in general due to the company’s reputation for only asking experts on any topic to speak. The argument is balanced all around though does experience some correlation, not causation errors and generalizations at some points. Archer only speaks on two species specifically, but does offer first-hand experience to the argument.
In the argument against De-Extinction, Stuart Pimm offers some intriguing ideas.
Stuart Pimm offers a degree in Conservation Ecology from Duke University. His Argument focuses largely on humans are not ready for De-Extinction in that since humans were the ones that pushed them to disappear, they are not going to want those species back. He gives the example that “hunters at [the Pyrenean ibex] to extinction. Reintroduce a resurrected ibex to the area where it belongs and it will become the most expensive cabrito every eaten.” He notes that the problem is whether we can resurrect these species or not, but more along the lines of whether the rest of the population will accept the animals back in their original homes. He also believes that De-Extinction “seduces” those granting research money and support into thinking they are doing well when it simply gives “unscrupulous developers a veil to hide their rapaciousness, with promises to fix things later.” Pimm is afraid that De-Extinction will give politicians and others a way to push conservation into the back seat with the idea that they can worry about it later. (Pimm,
2013) Stuart Pimm’s degree in Conservation Ecology gives him perfect ability to see on this topic because this is a topic concerning conservation and revival of species. His degree grants reputation and credibility since it is from a very well-known and high level university. His frequent writings in National Geographic magazine grant reliability as well because this shows he has a good reputation with his writings and ideas. Even so, because the article was written in 2013, some of the information may be outdated. Pimm’s argument covers a rather wide range of outlets regarding why De-Extinction should not be pursued. Also, since the source was written in National Geographic magazine, the article gains some credibility due to the magazine’s reputation as being a trusted source for science topics. Even so, the argument is rather unbalanced and features some generalization.
A very interesting stance on this issue is given by Throm van Dooren. He is a professor of Environmental Humanities at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He argues that in order for humans to truly learn anything from the extinction of species, we must let them go, thus stop all research in the topic. Doing this allows “processes of individual and collective mourning … allowing us to learn from and ‘work through’ experiences of loss.” This “genuine mourning” should show humans the dependence we carry on the relationships between us humans and those becoming extinct. He points out that while we live in a time “with an extraordinary empathy for endangered species,” we also live in a time when “alarming numbers of protected animals are being shot in the head, cudgeled to death, or worse.” (expelled) The collective mourning of communities will help us to see that this is wrong and will help fix this issue. (van Dooren, 2013)
Thom van Dooren’s degree grants ability to see because this is exactly what his degree and knowledge base covers. His status at the University gives him a good reputation, thus grants credibility. Also, because the source was written in 2013, the information offered may be outdated.
As for van Dooren’s argument, there is little to no mention or any sort of counterargument making the argument unbalanced. The argument is also based largely on theories that are not really backed up by any hard evidence.
As more and more research is done on the topic of De-Extinction, the more complex the idea becomes. Multiple factors go into this topic like economics, politics, science, psychology, and even the individual situations of the countries where the topic is being discussed. Due to this, more research will be needed to reach a full conclusion about which side’s argument is more founded. Both sides have very good points and there are still some unanswered questions by both. As for me, I believe the research being done should continue and I believe that the technology would be good to have for purposes beyond De-Extinction like space horticulture and assistance in third-world countries; although the research should be done in the name of conservation rather than reviving extinct species. This is because I can see the implications for politics looking at it as a way around conservation and I do not believe that is right. Also, it has been proven with the black-footed ferret that this technology can be used to introduce more genetic diversity into populations of inbred and endangered species, so why not just research in the name of conservation from the start? As I said before though, more research is needed and I will be sure to do some more digging.
clone was born and died ten minutes later, necropsy showing “that one of her lungs had grown a gigantic extra lobe as solid as a piece of liver.” (Zimmer, 2013) This endeavor has shown not only the limitations, but the possibilities of De-Extinction. Spearheaded by Stewart Brand with the help of his wife, Ryan Phelan, and Harvard biologist George Church, the De-Extinction movement gains momentum. As with most movements, there are two sides to the coin. There are those like Steward Brand and Michael Archer who support the De-Extinction movement while others like Stewart Pimm and Thom van Dooren do not support the De-Extinction movement. Along with his wife and project, Revive & Restore (through the Long Now Foundation), Stewart Brand forms the forefront of the De-Extinction movement. Brand studied biology at Stanford University and now writes books, articles, and gives speeches on a wide variety of topics in biology. He fully backs the De-extinction movement, defending it indefinitely. Brand notes in his argument, that a major problem with species as the start to become endangered is “progressive inbreeding.” The species begins “to lose fecundity… [And] the genetic diversity needed to adapt robustly.” This problem of nonexistent genetic diversity is what essentially cause the extinction of a species if the cause is not humans. Brand believes that “preventing extinction blurs over into reversing extinction in the emerging field of conservation genomics” and that the technology being made to revive these species can be used to also prevent extinction in the first place. He even mentions that “de-extinction is likely to bring new knowledge and new public involvement in preventing extinction.” Another argument made by Brand is that majority of the species that scientists are attempting to ‘revive’ serve some sort of purpose in the environment, his most mentioned being the woolly mammoth in Siberia to bring the grasslands back to the tundra. (Brand, 2014) Due to Stewart Brand’s background in biology and his reputation as a trusted speaker and author, he shows a reasonable amount of status among the De-Extinction community. This status grants him a good reputation, showing credibility. Also, due to his studies in biology, he has the ability to see, as this topic is almost entirely biology related. Although, because he is a co-founder of a large biology foundation, he may have a vested interest to keep his standing there, thus, he could be supporting this point simply to appease them.
Brand’s argument is balanced, making mention or counter arguments and responding to them appropriately. Even so, to the claims he does make, he gives little real data or evidence. He also admits the opposing opinion may have some criticisms that are indeed right. The article was written in 2014, meaning that it may be outdated, but this topic is not a fast-changing one; just because an article was written about this topic one or two years ago does not mean the ideas have changed per say.
Michael Archer is a scientist who also supports the De-Extinction efforts. Archer is a paleontologist at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He is currently working on the Lazuras project, attempting to revive the Gastric Brooding Frog, and a project trying to bring back the Tasmanian tiger. Archer’s argument centers on that “we not only have a moral obligation to see what we can do about [extinction], but … we’ve got a moral imperative to try.” He also comments on the medical benefits of bringing back certain species like the gastric brooding frog, allowing us to study how the frogs reproduce (in their stomachs). Next to these, Archer brings up the concern of some conservationists that the cloning process of the animals and the implantation of the eggs in another species could create hybrids. Archer states that this is not possible because the egg being implanted contains only the DNA placed within it, meaning the only thing that can be produced is what DNA is contained in the egg.(Archer, 2013)
Michael Archer can be given ability to see due to his studies in paleontology. This course of study allows him to understand better than most how extinct species may behave due to body structures and give him insights on how scientists can bring them back. At the same time, he is not a geneticist or a biologist so his information may be limited. His position at the University of New South Wales gives him credibility because we can be sure he has the resources to give the right information. Due to the fact that the talk was given in 2013, some of the information may be outdated.
The source itself is a speech from a TEDxTalk, which is a reliable source of information in general due to the company’s reputation for only asking experts on any topic to speak. The argument is balanced all around though does experience some correlation, not causation errors and generalizations at some points. Archer only speaks on two species specifically, but does offer first-hand experience to the argument.
In the argument against De-Extinction, Stuart Pimm offers some intriguing ideas.
Stuart Pimm offers a degree in Conservation Ecology from Duke University. His Argument focuses largely on humans are not ready for De-Extinction in that since humans were the ones that pushed them to disappear, they are not going to want those species back. He gives the example that “hunters at [the Pyrenean ibex] to extinction. Reintroduce a resurrected ibex to the area where it belongs and it will become the most expensive cabrito every eaten.” He notes that the problem is whether we can resurrect these species or not, but more along the lines of whether the rest of the population will accept the animals back in their original homes. He also believes that De-Extinction “seduces” those granting research money and support into thinking they are doing well when it simply gives “unscrupulous developers a veil to hide their rapaciousness, with promises to fix things later.” Pimm is afraid that De-Extinction will give politicians and others a way to push conservation into the back seat with the idea that they can worry about it later. (Pimm,
2013) Stuart Pimm’s degree in Conservation Ecology gives him perfect ability to see on this topic because this is a topic concerning conservation and revival of species. His degree grants reputation and credibility since it is from a very well-known and high level university. His frequent writings in National Geographic magazine grant reliability as well because this shows he has a good reputation with his writings and ideas. Even so, because the article was written in 2013, some of the information may be outdated. Pimm’s argument covers a rather wide range of outlets regarding why De-Extinction should not be pursued. Also, since the source was written in National Geographic magazine, the article gains some credibility due to the magazine’s reputation as being a trusted source for science topics. Even so, the argument is rather unbalanced and features some generalization.
A very interesting stance on this issue is given by Throm van Dooren. He is a professor of Environmental Humanities at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He argues that in order for humans to truly learn anything from the extinction of species, we must let them go, thus stop all research in the topic. Doing this allows “processes of individual and collective mourning … allowing us to learn from and ‘work through’ experiences of loss.” This “genuine mourning” should show humans the dependence we carry on the relationships between us humans and those becoming extinct. He points out that while we live in a time “with an extraordinary empathy for endangered species,” we also live in a time when “alarming numbers of protected animals are being shot in the head, cudgeled to death, or worse.” (expelled) The collective mourning of communities will help us to see that this is wrong and will help fix this issue. (van Dooren, 2013)
Thom van Dooren’s degree grants ability to see because this is exactly what his degree and knowledge base covers. His status at the University gives him a good reputation, thus grants credibility. Also, because the source was written in 2013, the information offered may be outdated.
As for van Dooren’s argument, there is little to no mention or any sort of counterargument making the argument unbalanced. The argument is also based largely on theories that are not really backed up by any hard evidence.
As more and more research is done on the topic of De-Extinction, the more complex the idea becomes. Multiple factors go into this topic like economics, politics, science, psychology, and even the individual situations of the countries where the topic is being discussed. Due to this, more research will be needed to reach a full conclusion about which side’s argument is more founded. Both sides have very good points and there are still some unanswered questions by both. As for me, I believe the research being done should continue and I believe that the technology would be good to have for purposes beyond De-Extinction like space horticulture and assistance in third-world countries; although the research should be done in the name of conservation rather than reviving extinct species. This is because I can see the implications for politics looking at it as a way around conservation and I do not believe that is right. Also, it has been proven with the black-footed ferret that this technology can be used to introduce more genetic diversity into populations of inbred and endangered species, so why not just research in the name of conservation from the start? As I said before though, more research is needed and I will be sure to do some more digging.