According to National Geographic, the Giant Sloth, the Cuban Red Macaw, the New Zealand Giant Moa, the Tasmanian Tiger, and the Woolly Mammoth are all among the faction of species that are extinct but that could possibly be revived. In fact, a poll issued on National Geographic’s website allows users to simply and effortlessly vote for which extinct species they would like most to see resurrected. Astonishingly, scientists have actually finagled a way to potentially make this poll useful. Biological scientists have discovered a method to conceivably resurrect extinct animals from their evolutionary graves. Termed de-extinction or species revival, this concept has evoked a substantial amount of social, ethical, and legal friction. Although the
…show more content…
It can not be ignored or disregarded that individual animals have the capacity to suffer. In order to produce one woolly mammoth, several modern female elephants will need to be impregnated for one to give birth to a surviving offspring (Marino). That is a countless amount of individual pachyderms that must be sacrificed to produce one surviving baby. “De-extinction will not be possible without violating any reasonable standard of humane treatment. For that reason alone it is unethical.” (Marino). Moreover, De-extinction is not practical in that it ignores the current mass extinction problem. Precedence should be given to the effort of preventing endangered species from going extinct, not to the effort of resurrecting species that no longer exist. “What is the validity of promoting the revival of mammoths, for instance, when Asian and African elephants will be lost by 2020?” (Marino). De-extinction aims to resurrect a single charismatic species, yet millions of species are threatened to become extinct. According to Stewart Pimm, a world leader in the studies of biodiversity and conservation biology, de-extinction is worse than a waste (Pimm). He says that by setting up the expectation that science and biotechnology can fix any damage that we are doing to the planet’s inhabitants, we will begin to worry less about the true destruction that we are causing. We cannot make a mess of the only
It can not be ignored or disregarded that individual animals have the capacity to suffer. In order to produce one woolly mammoth, several modern female elephants will need to be impregnated for one to give birth to a surviving offspring (Marino). That is a countless amount of individual pachyderms that must be sacrificed to produce one surviving baby. “De-extinction will not be possible without violating any reasonable standard of humane treatment. For that reason alone it is unethical.” (Marino). Moreover, De-extinction is not practical in that it ignores the current mass extinction problem. Precedence should be given to the effort of preventing endangered species from going extinct, not to the effort of resurrecting species that no longer exist. “What is the validity of promoting the revival of mammoths, for instance, when Asian and African elephants will be lost by 2020?” (Marino). De-extinction aims to resurrect a single charismatic species, yet millions of species are threatened to become extinct. According to Stewart Pimm, a world leader in the studies of biodiversity and conservation biology, de-extinction is worse than a waste (Pimm). He says that by setting up the expectation that science and biotechnology can fix any damage that we are doing to the planet’s inhabitants, we will begin to worry less about the true destruction that we are causing. We cannot make a mess of the only