The Pointless Artificial Creation Analysis

The “Pointless” Artificial Creation
The matter of cloning reached a peak when CEO of BioArts International, Lou Hawthorne, announced to his company that they were no longer offering dog-cloning services by giving demand of cloning for a an uninterested market and unethical competition between international markets as one of the reasons for the stoppage. A similar situation of total disregard to organism creation through laboratorial procedures was observed in Ehrlich’s article talking about the case against de-extinction (a branch similar to cloning and In-vitro fertilisation), wherein he clearly specifies “it’s a fascinating but dumb idea” and talks about if extinct species were to be revived, the endangered ones would definitely be affected. Stewart Brand, the author for de-extinction, might have been right when stating that the restoration of extinct species would allow the future generations to gain knowledge about their ancestors and give human’s a possibility for “conservation” of lost-species, but it all boils down to whether the money, which Brand did not evaluate, would be enough to create this cause. The CEO and Ehrlich were correct since organism development through research and lab work, …show more content…
Though he stated the reason for bringing back the pigeons and elephants so as to “protect them to undo harm that humans have caused” (in other words, the human population’s second chance), he didn’t give any clear indication in his article on whether they would be able to thrive in the current environment. So not only huge amounts of money that would be invested “to bring new knowledge” would go down the trash, but all the other resources would be put to waste. That is why, Ehrlich states that by bringing less than a quarter of a population into existence would not “compensate” for the past population, even if the resources of their original habitat aren’t