Reanimate False Species
The controversial issue that Please Reanimate and Do Not Reanimate address is that we can revive species that could possibly help our ecosystems and save modern day species of animals from going extinct; but on the other hand, reviving “extinct species poses a risk of selling the public on a false promise that technology alone can solve our ongoing environmental woes.” Reviving certain species could give ecosystems that depend on “keystone species” that have lost the species diversity they once had because some species no longer fit. And as environmental change occurs, ancient diversity may be needed again. The ability to reanimate extinct species would be perfect for this situation. But with the public rationalizing that researchers can
bring back an extinct species with the snap of their fingers would cause hunters, poachers, etc., to kill even more amounts of the animals being killed today for their prizes. We should be concerned about this controversy because this issue can start intense debates over what to do, is it worth the risk?, is it good enough?, is it our obligation to reanimate the species we wiped out?, is this playing God?, what could happen?
In the article Please Reanimate, the author presents a couple key points on why reviving an extinct species could be beneficial. Particularly, the author proposes that “returning the mammoth to the tundras could stave off some effects of global warming.” For example, by “puncturing through insulating snow the mammoth allows freezing air to penetrate the soil.” Please Reanimate talks about how the goal of reanimation is not to make perfect living copies of extinct organisms, but to adapt existing ecosystems to radical modern environmental changes, such as global warming, and possibly reverse those changes.
Do Not Reanimate’s author displays a very good point on why reanimating a species can be very detrimental. The author states, “A program to restore extinct species poses a risk of selling the public on a false promise that technology alone can solve our ongoing environmental woes-an assurance that if a species goes away, we can snap our fingers and bring it back.” If we were able to reanimate a species, arrogant humans would rationalize that we could just revive the species again. “With limited intellectual bandwidth and financial resources to go around, de-extinction threatens to divert attention from the modern biodiversity crisis.” This sentence from Do Not Reanimate provides a brilliant point that reanimating an extinct species could be potentially useless due to our lack of intellect and financial resources and it could draw away attention from the modern biodiversity crisis.
I think that reanimating extinct species could be beneficial to research. First of all, we could learn from these extinct animals, like hunting habits, self defense, juvenile actions. Although this could be beneficial, it could also be very detrimental due to arrogant humans. If we were able to reanimate an extinct species, people could rationalize that we can just reanimate that species again. So if researchers and scientists agreed to allow reanimation, I believe that there would have to be laws in regards to hunting and poaching. Because what if the reanimation process stopped working and the word that it stopped wasn’t believable, or it didn’t reach out to people hunting and more animals became extinct or endangered? The world’s ecosystem would have difficulty running. I think that the best thing to do is to either not reanimate at all, or limit reanimated animals to stay in labs and confined to wildlife preserves and not release them into the wild.
bring back an extinct species with the snap of their fingers would cause hunters, poachers, etc., to kill even more amounts of the animals being killed today for their prizes. We should be concerned about this controversy because this issue can start intense debates over what to do, is it worth the risk?, is it good enough?, is it our obligation to reanimate the species we wiped out?, is this playing God?, what could happen?
In the article Please Reanimate, the author presents a couple key points on why reviving an extinct species could be beneficial. Particularly, the author proposes that “returning the mammoth to the tundras could stave off some effects of global warming.” For example, by “puncturing through insulating snow the mammoth allows freezing air to penetrate the soil.” Please Reanimate talks about how the goal of reanimation is not to make perfect living copies of extinct organisms, but to adapt existing ecosystems to radical modern environmental changes, such as global warming, and possibly reverse those changes.
Do Not Reanimate’s author displays a very good point on why reanimating a species can be very detrimental. The author states, “A program to restore extinct species poses a risk of selling the public on a false promise that technology alone can solve our ongoing environmental woes-an assurance that if a species goes away, we can snap our fingers and bring it back.” If we were able to reanimate a species, arrogant humans would rationalize that we could just revive the species again. “With limited intellectual bandwidth and financial resources to go around, de-extinction threatens to divert attention from the modern biodiversity crisis.” This sentence from Do Not Reanimate provides a brilliant point that reanimating an extinct species could be potentially useless due to our lack of intellect and financial resources and it could draw away attention from the modern biodiversity crisis.
I think that reanimating extinct species could be beneficial to research. First of all, we could learn from these extinct animals, like hunting habits, self defense, juvenile actions. Although this could be beneficial, it could also be very detrimental due to arrogant humans. If we were able to reanimate an extinct species, people could rationalize that we can just reanimate that species again. So if researchers and scientists agreed to allow reanimation, I believe that there would have to be laws in regards to hunting and poaching. Because what if the reanimation process stopped working and the word that it stopped wasn’t believable, or it didn’t reach out to people hunting and more animals became extinct or endangered? The world’s ecosystem would have difficulty running. I think that the best thing to do is to either not reanimate at all, or limit reanimated animals to stay in labs and confined to wildlife preserves and not release them into the wild.