Monday, March 03, 2014

Article of the Week: All Classes Post Here- Due 3/7

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0

This week's article is a little lengthy, but interesting.  Should we bring extinct animals back to life?  What are the pros and cons?  Be sure to reference at least one quote from the article.  Extra credit for commenting on a classmate's post.  You may want to type in MSWord, and then copy/ paste/ post on the blog.

100 comments:

  1. I believe that the idea of Resurrection is interesting in theory, yet I believe that the research and money that it would require is excessive. While a resurrection would be a great tourism site, and would provide great research into evolutionary studies, it does not provide us with anything that we do not already have scientifically. We already know habits that they followed when they roamed the earth. I just do not believe that this would be a proper allocation of our funds. It would also take a large lab, researchers, and a large amount of experiments before such a feat could be attempted. These reanimated species do not serve any service to us and can certainly not be provided as a food source. I think that if a private researcher would look to do this like Novak, that would be okay, but I do not believe that it should be backed up with government subsidies. I just believe there are more pressing matters such as poverty and famine. I think this much like NASA. We don't need to be allocating more funds to things that are theoretically possible, or things that could potentially benefit us. So in theory I believe that this awesome, and in a perfect world this would be a great discovery, but at the moment I do not believe that this research is necessary on a federal level. And if Novak does succeed, then kudos, but I do not see what benefits we receive any way around.
    Mike B Per 3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike- I like your point about more pressing matters that need monetary funding. This is well written, but please use a quote from the article to support your point(s).

      Delete
  2. In my opinion resurrection of extinct animals would be a great idea if it was held to certain boundaries. My first reason being that carrying out the entire process would be extremely expensive. Also, releasing these animals into the wild could be dangerous since we dont know what kind of behaivors they possess. They could also screw up the food chain and/or have bad effects on their enviroment
    Jack Murray Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael Caminear Period 6
    It is honestly tough to say whether or not people should bring back extinct species. There is a very fine line between mother nature's actions and humanity's actions. Now, of course, there is a multitude of both pros and cons that would become present if such an idea were scientifically enacted. To quote the article, it says, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This simply means that there is a lot more to this topic than one may originally think. It is intertwined with a plethora of complicated issues such as religion, scientific advancement, and the role of humans in the world as a whole.
    To start, some of the positive things that can come along with the de-extinction of animals are insights into evolution and natural resources, technological advancements, justice for endangered species, and the restoration of damaged ecosystems due to industrialization. It would certainly be phenomenal if we gained even more scientific knowledge in the field of genetics or simply bring back the species that were put in danger because they were collateral damage in humans' effort to industrialize.
    On the other hand, some negative things that could come with the resurrection of extinct species are the possibility of the revival of deadly pathogens or viruses, the possibility that it could dilute the bioengineering field, and the moral dilemmas that come into play. If other species are being revived, then it's more than possible that the priorities of scientists may drastically change toward something that isn't really necessary. There is also the question of whether humans are playing a role that is too similar to that of a God. Would we be playing God if we did this? And are there any other unforeseen consequences that we may not be aware of? Before anything serious on this matter is done, I think that these questions need to be professionally answered.
    My overall opinion on this whole issue would be that if we want to pursue the de-extinction of animals, then we must also make the necessary preparations so that no serious issues arise in the future. All in all, this was a very interesting article and I look forward to further investigation of this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, we should bring extinct animals back to life. While expensive and time-consuming, this is a worthwhile endeavor for the human race. As the article states, thousands of species die every day due to multiple reasons; as we are capable, we should do all we can to preserve life. This project will test human innovation and allow humans to come together to complete a common goal; this is a great project to unite together behind. We shouldn't wait for the economic limitations of the current world limit our thirst for knowledge. Species can only be saved/resurrected for a limited time or in VERY, VERY rare conditions involving amber. Due to DNA deterioration, we only have a limited time for this project to work and we must start now if it is to be successful. Why study the stars and universe if we can't get past the moon with humans? To sate natural curiosity and advance human knowledge of the world/universe we live in. We should not limit ourselves due to economic problems. Also, I want a mammoth.
    Jared C. Period: 2

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bringing back extinct species is a pretty cool idea, but I think that it's not all its psyched up to be. When you hear the word "clone" you think of an exact replicate, something that is not only genetically, but physically the same. However, it's a little naïve for us to think that scientists will be able to, basically, resurrect an entire species who were once extinct, and they'll be roaming around like they were never gone.They can come close to it, by finding animals that are alive now and changing certain characteristics of them to be more like the desired extinct species, but it's too futuristic to believe that they can find DNA and somehow build on that one structure to recreate an entire species of animals that don't currently exist. In the article it says, "maybe George Church, is going to insert some genes into the Asian-elephant genome that make it slightly hairier. That would be just a tiny portion of the genome manipulated, but a few years later, you have a thing born that is an elephant, only hairier, and the press will write, ‘George Church has cloned a mammoth!” The idea of cloning extinct animals sounds awesome, and I have no real opinion on whether we should or shouldn’t clone them but I think we first must realize that what we are getting ourselves into, is more of an altering. So we won’t get to be in existence with the same animals that once lived during the ice age, instead we’ll be with the same animals that have been here in our lifetime, but are genetically changed to try and bring back species from the past.
    Cara B
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  6. George H P.7
    As I read this I was shocked to hear that at least 1 species goes extinct every year. I was also shocked to hear that at one point Americans use to eat Passenger Pigeons which were considered a delicacy. When I read this about the passenger pigeon my mouth dropped, "It made up as much as 40 percent of the continent’s bird population." This was a shock because now a days those birds are extinct and seen in museums in display cases. Who would have thought a species of pigeon would become a extinct species due to over hunting. Besides the pigeons I found it interesting on how they could take the DNA of an extinct species and implant it into a egg of a furtile cousin of the species. "This cloning method, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, can be used only on species for which we have cellular material." The cloning could only work with a family member of the same genetic background. Soon if this background disappeared what would we do about the cloning of that background? I wondered this as I read interested in the mere statues of taking a dead species and imbeding it into a living relitive in order to replicate the species sounded to good to be true. I looked deeper into the mater like dinosaurs for instince couldn't be replicated because not even a lizard's DNA match a dinosaurs statues. I see a good idea, but at the same time I see flaues. At least someday maybe we can advance even more in our cloning technology with funding and bright minds available. Our science fiction is becoming a reality!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cassie V. P;7
      Good points George! Love your references back to the article! & about the pigeons!

      Delete
    2. Megan Glynn Period 3
      I share the same fascination with George but also wanted to point out to people that thousands of species go extinct ever year, yet we just don't realize it. At least half of them are because of us, which relates back to my point that as a superior species with the capability to bring back extinct animals, we should focus on those that we wrongly made extinct. Good job George

      Delete
  7. Cassie V. Period; 7
    When i was reading this article about the mammoth, i was shocked to see that at least one species around the world goes extinct every year, and another thing i was shocked by is the fact that people eat passenger pigeons? To me, that's sort of messed up!! When i read the passage about passenger pigeon my mouth actually did drop. Now, when i read this article about the mammoth, i don't think that they should clone the mammoth, or at that fact, going back to the passenger pigeon, clone any animal, because they even said that they cloned an animal before but it only lived for seconds!!! Which, isn't very long at all, and i know they said, "The cloning could only work with a family member of the same genetic background soon if this background disappeared what would we do about the cloning of that background?" I don't think its a good idea to take a dead species and remake it. In a way, to me, that's going against god, which isn't a good thing, but on the other hand, is our science fiction becoming a reality?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephanie Durso Period:7
      I agree with what said about cloning species. I agree that doing this is going against god and nature which could create many errors.Though I also agree that in the future that many things that we believe to be science fiction is going to become a reality.

      Delete
  8. I feel as if bringing back extinct species back to life would be a very interesting idea however it may also be very complicated idea as well. In the text it said, "This is difficult, because DNA begins to decay as soon as an organism dies. e DNA also mixes with the DNA of other organisms with which it comes into contact, like fungus, bacteria and other animals. If you imagine a strand of DNA as a book, then the DNA of a long-dead animal is a shuffled pile of torn pages, some of the scraps as long as a paragraph, others a single sentence or just a few words. The scraps are not in the right order, and many of them belong to other books." The overall process of making it so that extinct animals can come back to life is a very extraordinary one, however it seems to be a very difficult process. If something goes wrong what will happen to that species? Will is affect us in any way? It's kind of just something you have to wait and see what happens.
    Marissa G
    Period: 8

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think bringing back extinct animals would be a big mistake.Although it would be very cool and interesting to see animals we haven't had the chance to see, there are bad things that could happen. First of all, lots of money would have to be lent out to do the research and actually do the process with different machines and tools. this could make the U.S. go into debt.Second of all, many religious people would not like making animals that have naturally died. This would cause lots of conflict between religious people and scientists. I feel there would be too much controversy to bring back animals that have already died. In the end i think it is a bad idea to lend out a lot of money and cause violence
    Nick T
    per 8

    ReplyDelete
  10. The passenger pigeon is a symbol of all animals that are extinct. Sure its a bird and nobody thinks twice about it as it only attracted a small crowd when it went extinct but nonetheless it is an animal that is no longer with us- from our doing. When discussing resurrection of a dead species, the thought of nature running its course comes to mind. We should be at the will of mother nature and not obstruct it. But what if we were the ones to obstruct it in the first place? Is it then justified? Can we bring back an extinct animal and not feel abnormal about it?
    "For millenniums, we have customized our environment, our vegetables and our animals, through breeding, fertilization and pollination."
    We have done everything but create a species. I believe it is okay to create a new species because it has no negative effect on the environment and should alleviate some pressure off of our backs.
    Alec Carlson

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that animal resurrection is an interesting idea, however I believe that it is not necessarily a good idea. The main point of concern for me is how it will affect the animal. For example in the article it says, "but [the first cloned mammal] didn’t live long. After struggling to breathe for several minutes, the kid choked to death." This shows that scientists haven't yet mastered the process for cloning an animal without its suffering shortly after birth. I think that scientists need to gain more knowledge and understanding before conducting their experiments with cloning. I understand that it is hard for them to get information and learn about cloning without actually experimenting with it but I think that we need to know more in general about this field of study before continuing to clone animals, nonetheless resurrect an extinct species. In addition there are several consequences associated with bringing back an extinct species such as its effectiveness and cost. Bringing back an extinct species brings with it a risk of it being subject to modern diseases it was never made to handle and in return just end up making the species go extinct all over again. Also, there is an issue of money. To run all these experiments it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. In the end would it be worth it to spend so much time and money on something that might not even work? My answer would be no, I don't think that an extinct species should be brought back to life.
    Jessica M. Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  12. Even though the resurrection of extinct animals "can be used only on species for which we have cellular material", I feel that it is scary for humans to potentially have the capability to do this. Ryan Phelan states in the article, "De-extinction went from concept to potential reality right before our eyes". But is this something we should look at positively, or will it create a worldwide disaster. I take AP Environmental Science this year, and I've learned that 99.9% of species that have ever existed on Earth are extinct. That is a huge percentage to except at first, but although so many species are extinct, new species take their place, and the ecosystem can eventually readjust for the most part. To bring back extinct species could create an unbalance in food chains and the ecosystem. We should not interfere with nature in this case. We are stepping over our boundaries by doing this. I do not believe it is right.
    Claire Paterson
    Class 3

    ReplyDelete
  13. Resurrection of extinct animals would definitely be an interesting and captivating part of our history, but just because resurrecting animals is beyond fascinating, it can cause harm to the current environment. Everything within our environment is connected in some type of way, and with a resurrection of animals that we have cellular material for, it wouldn't be beneficial to our surroundings. It could cause major imbalance and possible danger. If scientests recreated only one animal to study or for people to see, then it probably wouldn't be that bad. But adding an extinct species to an already fragile ecosystem can cause chaos.
    Gabby White
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I first read about the resurrection of extinct animals I thought it was a really interesting idea. However, after reading this article, I do not think the de-extinction of animals is a smart idea. I think that being able to resurrect extinct animals would be a great breakthrough for the scientific world; bringing back a beautiful animal such as the passenger pigeon, however I do not see it as beneficial to nature overall. The article states, "De-extinction should be pursued, they argued in a paper published in Science, because it would be really cool." I see the de-extinction of animals as more of a commercial benefit than scientific. Attractions with de-extinct animals would bring in a lot of profit to companies, but I don't think it is a good idea in the grand scheme of things considering every animal goes extinct for a reason and perhaps nature shouldn't be messed with.

    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  15. This whole concept of “de-extinction is for this group of people who are preoccupied and consumed with certain animals. Sure it will be interesting and fascinating to see these extinct animals alive but is it really worth it. The reason they were extinct was probably because of nature and couldn’t survive in this type of environment as earth is right now. And can we really benefit from these animals?, especially when such large amount of money is being invested. “Among these projects are a 300-foot-tall clock designed to tick uninterruptedly for the next 10,000 years, financed by a $42 million investment from the Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos and situated inside an excavated mountain that Bezos owns near Van Horn, Tex.; and a disk of pure nickel inscribed with 1,500 languages that has been mounted on the Rosetta space probe, which this year is scheduled to land on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, 500 million miles from earth.” This is great that they are building new and interesting clocks but is there a point to that? How can this be helpful to the humans or any other animal? This is a waste of money since so many people in the world are starving for food and the this is how we are investing money. I also found some interesting comments from which this one is pretty smart, “ I think spending the money and efforts to prevent other species from going extinct is more important than bringing back already extinct species” by fish guy. I completely agree with him (assuming male from his name). Why don’t the scientist focus on saving the species from getting extinct rather than de-extinct them once they get extinct. Also, even if they do bring back the extinct animals to life with some dna manipulation, can we create a comfortable and natural environment for them?
    ~Shilpa R Period-3

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe that de-extinction is such an unpredictable process. It could take decades and billions of dollars to actually bring to life an animal that went extinct. There are many pros, along with cons, to this “Revive and Restore” project being done by Stewart Brand, Ben Novak, and his team. According to the article, one major benefit of reviving the extinct woolly mammoth is, “The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting — a benefit with global significance”. We are somewhat in a state of environmental crisis. With pollution at an all time high, global warming is a huge issue that could potentially cause an extinction of polar bears. The polar ice caps are melting and they are the home of the polar bears. Possibly re-creating a species could save many more. I think there many more cons proposed with this project. No one will truly know what will happen if extinct species are brought back to life because none of us were alive to see what it was like when we once shared the same terrain. It could be potentially fatal to us. One question in the article proposed by a conservationist was, “...addresses the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared. Why go through all the trouble just to have the animal go extinct all over again?”. This was a good question, somatic cell nuclear transfer is an unpredictable method. When Dolly the sheep was cloned and born, she only lived for a few minutes. They are not known to live very long. The idea of “playing god” also comes into play. They became extinct for a reason. The idea that “god creates everything” and them trying to recreate species has caused major controversy. I believe that this project “Revive and Restore” is something that should definitely be thought about a little more. More research and knowledge should come into play before going about restoring species.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stephanie Durso Period:7
    After reading the article I found that I agree with many others that the topic of resurrection is fascinating, but seems unrealistic. I also agree that when you start messing with nature it causes many errors. Nature is where animals are made not in labs. It will take many years and a whole lot of money to establish what many scientists are trying to achieve with resurrecting extinct animals.But this concern, said David Haussler, the co-founder of the Genome 10K Project, is overblown. “There’s always this fear that somehow, if we do it, we’re going to accidentally make something horrible, because only nature can really do it right. But this concern, said David Haussler, the co-founder of the Genome 10K Project, is overblown. “There’s always this fear that somehow, if we do it, we’re going to accidentally make something horrible, because only nature can really do it right. I agree that when we start tampering with nature the outcome wont be good. I think the idea although interesting I think it will take many years of research and trial and error for Resurrection to a work and b be accepted by the science community. It would be nice to resurrect certain species if they are beneficial but i don't think all should be resurrected. Unfortunately I think certain species were extinct for a reason. The pro is it could help with discovery of new things. Though the con is that we don't know what will be created and how to control what is created. Personally I feel that this is an interesting topic that eventually will be made true. Like any other discovery in history it takes years and then more years for it to be accepted as a valid discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jon Bodner
    P7

    In my opinion I feel like bringing back extinct animals would not be a good idea. Even though most of the species are small, “Pathogens in the environment are constantly evolving, and animals are developing new immune systems,” said Doug Armstrong, a conservation biologist in New Zealand." So if we do bring back extinct species they might catch a disease that might cause them to go extinct again. People would be spending so much time and money, for what something that will end up going extinct again. Also even if we bring small species from extinction and it works, where would we put them. If people were ever thinking of bringing back some kind of prehistoric animal, it just wouldn't work because the oxygen level back then is more than it is today, so they would die immediately. If you think about it maybe all these animals went extinct for a reason. " The first question posed by conservationists addresses the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared. Why go through all the trouble just to have the animal go extinct all over again?" this is why I feel that bringing back extinct animals back to life. Why watch them suffer all over again? Its all about survival of the fittest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In my opinion resurrection of extinct animals would be a great idea if it was held to certain boundaries. My first reason being that carrying out the entire process would be extremely expensive. Also, releasing these animals into the wild could be dangerous since we dont know what kind of behaivors they possess. They could also screw up the food chain and/or have bad effects on their enviroment. In the article it said,"The creation of novel organisms, like new animals, plants and bacteria, will transform human medicine, agriculture, energy production and much else". I think if this is true than scientists should definitely pursue this idea. All of those things we could definitely improve on. Especially energy production considering how well run out of natural resources at some point.
    Jack Murray Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  20. i feel as though bringing back extinct animals is not a good idea. I think on a certain level that it would be very cool to see all the animals that i never even dreamed of seeing, but it would cause many problems. One major issue with doing this is that it is going to cost alot of money. the scientist doing this will need tons and tons of money to bring them back. the big problem is that there is the what if factor. the what if factor is what if it doesnt work. what if we put all of this money into getting these machines and paying these scientists to recreate these animals and it falls through. that would be a huge deal. another thing is, i dont feel as though it is very important to bring them back to life. i feel as though the money can be used on something more important than bringing back extinct animals. another big controversy is religious beliefs. many religious people feel as though animals should not be made by machine but instead by man. this will cause serious conflicts withing religious beliefs and other things.
    Per:8
    Quinn u

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think bringing back extinct animals would be a big mistake.Although it would be very cool and interesting to see animals we haven't had the chance to see, there are bad things that could happen. First of all, lots of money would have to be lent out to do the research and actually do the process with different machines and tools. A quote from the article says "This cloning method, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, can be used only on species for which we have cellular material." Cloning costs lots of money, even millions, possibly billions. Once this cloning is accomplished, scientists will want to do it more often which will add up. Trillions could be spent if scientists wanted to go to an extreme. This could cause the U.S. go into debt.Second of all, many religious people would not like making animals that have naturally died. This would cause lots of conflict between religious people and scientists. I feel there would be too much controversy to bring back animals that have already died. In the end i think it is a bad idea to lend out a lot of money and cause conflict.
    Nick T
    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  22. As interesting as i find this topic, I don't think we should resurrect these extinct animals from the dead. While reading the article you learn about the science and technology that can bring these creatures back to life. But my question is, is it really worth it? It'll take an immense amount of time, money, people, and research to do this. Why should we bring these animals back? I believe that they became extinct for a reason-perhaps the species couldn't survive the changing climate of the earth. It's part of nature, "survival of the fittest" so to speak. Two scientists in the article said " I think it would be really cool to bring back the mammoth" But is it a good idea? Yes it would be cool but we don't know how to take care of these animals. And yes there may be some positive outcomes as the Novak stated, "We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the arctic. One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success." But having 100,000 mammoths roaming the earth may have negative results as well. I think if they really wanted to bring back the passenger pigeon then that's fine. but I don't think resurrecting animals is worth the amount of money.
    Amy B. per 8

    ReplyDelete
  23. Because of the topic, I was interested in the topic right away. Learning about extinct species, like the passenger pigeon in my classes this year, it made me even more invested and excited. I think the concept of de-extinction is very cool but we could never know the effects that re-introducing this species back into out current climate and conditions can have. One theory, that actually is a good one is "The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting — a benefit with global significance, as the Arctic permafrost contains two to three times as much carbon as the world’s rain forests" And that's something we could hope for but never really know for sure. And there could be many negative impacts this could have on our environment as well. For example, re-introducing the woolly mammoth to our urbanized, climate changed world could be a problem. Where would we put them? Would they migrate into cities? Would cities migrate into their new home? And with the passenger pigeons, we don't know how this is going to effect other species of pigeons for competitive resources for food and shelter. I just find it a little bit funny that humans made most of these animals, or were major parts of making a lot of these animals extinct and now we want to bring them back again. Also the world is ever evolving and ever changing so some species need to become extinct for other to take its place. The wooly mammoth became extinct for a reason, who are we to go against nature and re-introduce the species?

    As for the article portion, I didn't really like how it was written. Though I believed the article was well worded and very factual, I did think it was lengthy and drawn out. Lots of things that were included, didn't have to be because they didn't add to the central message or argument of the article,

    MaryColleen Whitney
    period 2

    ReplyDelete
  24. The resurrection of extinct species definitely appears to be an inventive idea, although it has many faults as well. Other than for aesthetic value, most extinct creatures don't really have a reason to be brought back to this planet, nor do they obtain the ability to live here on their own since whatever caused their extinction most likely is still on the planet. I think that at this point scientists are beginning to play the role of god, by bringing back species that were meant to die off. I would understand if the species that scientists were considering resurrecting were significant to the human life, or had potential for assistance in the medical field, but otherwise we would be wasting our time re-introducing creatures that we expelled many years ago. For example the passenger pigeon for many years was considered a nuisance by harming crops, and blackening out the sun, that farmers especially took it upon themselves to hunt and destroy them in vast quantities. If the Pigeons were brought back to earth other than in order to be located in some zoo, they would most likely be treated in the same manner. On top of the insignificance of the species scientist are attempting to bring back, the genetic process of recreating and birthing these species is extremely time consuming and expensive. I can take years to rewrite the genetic codes, and there is no way of proving its complete accuracy. In the article they touch upon the process of altering the genetic code when they describe MAGE, "MAGE is nicknamed the “evolution machine” because it can introduce the equivalent of millions of years of genetic mutations within minutes. " I highly disagree with the manipulation of the extinct species genes in order to help them avoid certain diseases and mutations. If the species successfully made it back on earth alone, it should be as they were, rather than some new invincible breed. It reminds me of the work being done on babies to help parents avoid any encountering of problems after birth, and although I agree in some cases that can be helpful, its unethical. The topic of extinction resurrection is highly controversial, and I believe it should be avoided unless it is for the direct benefit of human kind including the environment.
    Alyssa Case
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  25. I for one do not believe that we should bring extinct animals back to life, unless of course we were the cause for their extinction. If an animal, like the mammoth, 'died' many many years ago it was for a reason, and therefore while it may seem 'cool' to bring a dead animal back to life, it would not have an ideal environment to thrive in. So it would be wrong to bring the animal back to life, given that the Earth has moved on and cannot provide a suitable environment for them to live in. If we were the cause of an animal's extinction (like a type of lemur on Madagascar due to our religion and deforestation) then it would only be right to bring the animal back. Not only should we not have done that in the first place, but then we should cease what caused the extinction and bring the animal back so it can thrive in the correct environment again. This is a great way to right our wrongs and prevent even more animals going extinct ever year due to us humans and our ways, although this power/'Plan B' should not be taken for granted as it takes a lot to actually go about bringing a species back to life. There should be a set of criteria to follow in deciding which species to bring back to life. Along with bringing them back to life, we have an obligation to help them gain their numbers and thrive in the appropriate environment once again before never touching them ever again.
    Megan Glynn Period 3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked your point about animals dying for a reason. Many species die off due to the environment and human’s interference. You made another good point about our interaction with these animals if they come back. If the species are revived we must make an effort to protect the animals and help regulate their environment so they so our efforts are not wasted on animals that will die again. I also believe only certain animals could be brought back, considering the changes in the environment you mentioned before.

      Delete
  26. Conor Duffy
    Period: 7
    Ben Novak, a scientist, wanted to resurrect extinct animals from the dead back to life. Like the old Passenger Pigeon, it’s a symbol for Novak to want to resurrect the extinct, as well as other scientists. Zoologist Tim Flannery stated that “Is Mass Extinction of Life on Earth Inevitable?” In my opinion, I believe that one day humans and other creatures ‘may’ go extinct because of natural cause or self-destruction. Bringing back animals from the dead may not be the smartest idea. First of all, it going to be extremely expensive for funding and extra needs for this task. Second, there will be a controversy between religious people and non-religious people. Because there are beliefs that animals shouldn't be brought back to life. Third, if there were any chance of us being able to bring back animals from the dead, these animals may not be able to be live in our environment. “This optimistic, soft-focus fantasy of de-extinction, while thrilling to Ben Novak, is disturbing to many conservation biologists, who consider it a threat to their entire discipline and even to the environmental movement.” Temperatures are rising and the environment is changing. Like the mammoth, it is an animal from the ice age and it may not be able to survive in our environment. Throughout generations, animals go extinct because of natural causes. There extinct because of the passing conditions. That’s why there is no need to waste money or time to bring them back to life.

    ReplyDelete
  27. after reading this article I do not think we should bring extinct animals back into life to change the nature and the perspective of the world. We don't have what these animals need on earth now. Before dinosaurs were extinct we had these big huge rocks etc. How would man-mouths get their food and survive bc we don't have enough to help this. Today you see litter and trash all over the streets and this would affect the extinct animals habitat. Its better they stay extinct because they are a part of history and we can learn from that. i also don't wasn't to see a T Rex outside of my house. Our population is so much larger we don't have room for these animals and they can be dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Resurrection of extinct animals seems like a good idea when you first hear about it. But, when learning more about it, it is not a good idea. These animals are extinct for a reason, and may not fit back into the ecosystem in the right way. They may die of because they don't have to resources they once did, or may cause the extinction of many other animals. Also, these animals may come out flawed. They may have medical problems and live in pain, or even die quickly after being born, which really isn't fair to the animal. Instead on focusing mainly on resurrecting animals that are already extinct animals, we should focus animals at the brink of their extinction, what we can do about it, and why they are dying.

    Emma Salvatore
    Per 3

    ReplyDelete
  29. The resurrection of these animals is a bad idea. Its a bad idea because for one they are extinct for a reason people. They are extinct because they shouldnt be living in our time and are not fit to live in our society and could be a problem especially mammoths because they are one of the biggest mammals to walk the earth and trying to supress them if they get out of control would be no good. Also we would be toying with the works of mother nature and as we all know you dont want to get on her bad side because she going to come back at us. But, besides that shouldnt we be trying to save the species that are currently in OUR time dwindling by the hundreds or thousands should be looked upon and cared for and not these exticnt animals that have been dead for years on end.
    Ricky Pietruszka
    Period 7

    ReplyDelete
  30. Truthfully even if they finished this project they wouldn't have brought anything back, they even state that it would just be animal like the species that is extinct."The term “de-extinction” is misleading."they go on to say"band-tailed-pigeon DNA will be altered to resemble passenger-pigeon D
    per7NA." this show they wont actually be able to resurrect a dead species but instead create one that closely resembles it, so until we figure out a way to actually reproduce a living, actual,extinct creature then we shouldn't create a new one in its place.

    eddie t

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't question our ability to resurrect an extinct species. Even if we couldn't start today, there is no doubt in my mind that just a few years more research could bring us to the world that Ben Novak wants to live in. In fact, the author even briefly describes a seemingly simple process when he talks about the basic procedure where “No hocus-pocus” was involved. This, however, does not mean that we should try to repopulate the already crowded world with long dead animals. Novak shows no regard for the major issue of how the ecosystem is affected by de-extinction. Ecologist Daniel Simberloff brings us this important issue when saying, “technofixes for environmental problems are band-aids for massive hemorrhages.” This technofix, the de-extinction of extinct pigeons under Ben Novak, is especially problematic when we talking about a species said to have been one of the most populous birds in the history of the world. We all hear about how things like overfishing or over hunting destroy the world… well, so does throwing an extinct species back into the wild.

    Cameron O'Neill P.6

    ReplyDelete
  32. When we first hear of the bringing extinct animals back to life it sound really cool but we don't think about the consequences it can cause and that i also can be a really bad idea like it says in the article Ecologists will study how the birds affect their environment and are affected by it.Extinct animals can affect their own environment and they can be affected by it as well because their abitad is not they same as years ago when they were in Earth. For example, Dinosaurs, They were big and they need a lot of space to live and everything and now a days we dont have a lot of places were there is enough space for them, and their food, we dont know what kind of food they eat, so while scientist are looking or searching for what kinda of food they eat dinos can die. So my opinion is No I dont think we should bring them back because they are going to die again.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I do not think that de-extinction is a good idea. Sure, it would be cool to see a real woolly mammoth, but what would we do with them all? In the article it says that bringing this animal back will help prevent things like global warming, but it also says," One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success.” If we were to bring that many mammoths back to life where would we put them all? How would we take care of them? How would they interact with other animals and humans? The mammoth went extinct for a reason; I do not think it would be good to bring it back. It might mess things up. Another reason that I don’t think that resecting animals is a good idea is because what if that animal is not the same? When talking about the DNA sequence of the passenger pigeon, the article says,” If you imagine a strand of DNA as a book, then the DNA of a long-dead animal is a shuffled pile of torn pages, some of the scraps as long as a paragraph, others a single sentence or just a few words. The scraps are not in the right order, and many of them belong to other books.” Using the DNA of an animal close to passenger pigeon might make the animal close to how it was before, but will this affect the animal in the future? Will it change anything about it? There seems to be many reasonable and unanswered questions on this topic, another reason why it is not a good idea.
    Julia Kendzierski
    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  34. In my opinion from the article shows me that this process and world that Ben Novak wants to live in is possible. He believes that he can bring extinct species back to life and I believe this could be a very interesting world to live in. In the article Novak says, "There was so much interest and so many ideas that we needed to create an infrastructure around it." Novak said this after he realized it was possible to bring a passenger pigeon back to life. In this quote he is saying that he can bring any extinct specie back to life that he wants and he needs a structure to contain them. I like Novak's idea however, I believe for many religions it is against the rules to resurrect a living thing. In other words I believe it will go against peoples religion to bring back these animals so it may be very controversial at first. Overall, I would enjoy this new world with extinct animals and soon research may lead to being able to bring people back to life.
    Owen K
    per 8

    ReplyDelete
  35. After reading this article, I immediately thought to myself, " How could he possibly complete this", I mean extinct species are extinct for a reason and the idea of extinction is that those animals will never come back. To be honest, It would be exhilarating and fantastic to be able to witness the coming back of a extinct specie but I feel as if they would serve no real purpose. Yes, they could serve as a precedent idea to scientists as " Oh that guy brought back that animal, that means we could bring back this animal". But other than that there are no real reasons to doing so. Ben Novak is a pretty weird guy to be brutally honest, but his idea and planning of this so called bring back of an extinct specie is pretty cool, but I don't think it is the best idea. Even if these species resurrected, they would not fit as well into the ecosystem as they once did, because chances are, whatever surrounded them when they were alive are gone too including food, resources and other things. Overall, my main thought on this is I dont believe that the resurrection of this mammoth is a great idea, while there are benefits to the bring back of it, I believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and therefore should not be done completely
    Dalton E
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jake S.
    Period 2
    I believe that the idea of resurrection is interesting, however I do not see any way that we can provide funding for a program and the actual resurrection would not serve a greater purpose. I believe we already know enough information on pre-historic species and the topic does not require any more allocation of funds. I feel that there are more important issues in our country that have a priority, such as the economy and poverty. The fact of the matter is that we just don't need these creatures roaming the planet. They would create an unnecessary burden to other animals and their habitats. Stewart Brand says, "One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success." Where are we going to keep 100,000 mammoths? What habitats will they disrupt and what food chains will be effected? I feel that this is a cool idea however there needs to be more thought in this process rather than make hasty decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. There are a few ways you can look at bringing back an extinct species. From an evolutionary stand point its a waste of time. Forget morals, ethics, and all those little factors, if you think about it, there's a reason that a species has gone extinct; it was a weak species that could not survive in its environment and therefore died off. If you were to bring back some of these species it would just die off again because it wasn't suited for the changing environment of our world. In the case of the passenger pigeon they should not be allowed to come back. Bird species survive much longer because of their ability to fly and move to new environments relatively quickly. If these birds could travel in flocks that could "occupied an area as large as 850 square miles, or 37 Manhattans." they should be able to survive and adapt as a population relatively well. Given they were all killed off by humans shows that they must have been just plain stupid. So would it be worth bringing them back? Not in the least bit, and that Ben Novak guy is an obsessive crackpot who needs a new hobby. Now if you want to look at bringing old species back to life from a moral position then i mean yes it is a bit controversial. In my opinion it isn't really a big deal, in fact, it's a simple procedure that is done frequently when dealing with cloning that requires a good amount of tries but essentially its like creation of any living organism. There's no divine interference or power to bring the dead back to life. Its just DNA in an egg that's placed in a parent that will grow and develop and then be birthed like every other organism on this planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ben Novak guy is an obsessive crackpot who needs a new hobby"---funny:)

      Delete
  38. I believe it would be beneficial to the environment, science, and the economy to bring back extinct animals. One of the biggest impacts on our world could come from de-extinction. There was talk in the article of the positive effects wooly mammoths would have on the artic. “Just as the loss of a species decreases the richness of an ecosystem, the addition of new animals could achieve the opposite effect. The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting — a benefit with global significance, as the Arctic permafrost contains two to three times as much carbon as the world’s rain forests.” Also, passenger pigeons could lower the rise of Lime disease. “Some scientists have speculated that, by competing for acorns with rodents and deer, the passenger pigeon could bring about a decrease in Lyme disease.” To say that a project such as Revive and Restore will take away money from environmental projects is untrue, considering the project is scientific; most benefactors are “tech millionaires who are not known for supporting ecological causes”. Other people have doubts concerning how successful the project will be. As Ben Novak stated in the article, de-extinction has already begun. “More than 10 years ago, a team that included Alberto Fernández-Arias (now a Revive & Restore adviser) resurrected a bucardo, a subspecies of mountain goat also known as the Pyrenean ibex, that went extinct in 2000.” Although the goat did not live longer than its first breath, the project still holds its importance. If people do not try things that have never been successfully completed before, nothing would ever be invented, and society would never advance. “The creation of novel organisms, like new animals, plants and bacteria, will transform human medicine, agriculture, energy production and much else. De-extinction ‘is the most conservative, earliest application of this technology…’” At the very least, resurrected animals could open up a new market: de-extinction parks. In fact, plans have already begun. “Sergey Zimov, who has created an experimental preserve in Siberia called Pleistocene Park, which he hopes to populate with woolly mammoths.”

    Caitie Perricone
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  39. The idea of bringing extinct animals to life is fascinating to think about. There would be many pros and cons to creating an animal, such as a carrier pigeon or a woolly mammoth, and it would be an incredible scientific achievement if we were able to accomplish such a task. "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This quote speaks volumes to what the success of this experiment would mean to the scientific community and the world. While having a live woolly mammoth would give us amazing insight to a species that was alive during an ice age, there is always dangers in performing an experiment of this magnitude. There is a reason that these animals went extinct and many of the extinct species died off a long time ago bringing back these animals could also resurrect strains of viruses and bacteria that we are not immune to. We are seeing this today with global warming and the thawing of permafrost in the northern and southern poles so it is a very real danger. Overall I think it would be an outstanding achievement to accomplish a project this big.
    Hannah Beatty pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  40. After I read this article, I believe that it is a waste of time to bring back these endangered animals, I mean they are gone for a reason. It is cool that science has come this far, and yeah it would be cool to see this but it is also very expensive. I would much rather want to see this money go to a better organization. But it does not always work, and they cannot always bring them back. In the article it says, "But the most visceral argument against de-extinction is animal cruelty. Consider the 56 female mountain goats who were unable to bring to term the deformed bucardo embryos that were implanted in their wombs. Or the bucardo that was born and lived only a few minutes, gasping for breath, before dying of a lung deformity? “Is it fair to do this to these animals?” Shapiro asked." I do not believe that it is fair to do this to animals, and is animal cruelty. I understand that it takes a lot of tries to master it, but this costs a lot of money, and personally, I would rather see science get farther in other things before I want to see extinct animals be re created. It is a cool idea, but I don't think they should make them
    Alla M. period 2

    ReplyDelete
  41. The thought of bringing an extinct species back to life is astonishing. Our knowledge in the scientific world has reached new heights of innovation. The main debate along with this article is if we actually should bring extinct species back to life. There are a handful of positives and negatives, but personally I don't think the effort and investments put into this research is necessary. Sure, going to a zoo full of extinct species would be an unbelievable experience, but, it really does not provide any other benefits. For the most part, species that go extinct, go extinct for a reason, and they are no longer suitable for survival on this planet. On the other hand, species like the passenger pigeon, are going extinct because of humans and this is on the rise. If we were to go through with this research and bring back extinct species, I believe it should be species that we were the cause for their extinction. Like said in the article, if we brought species back from 100 or more years ago they risk contracting diseases. "Pathogens in the environment are constantly evolving... If you recreate a species genetically and release it, you probably will increase the risk of them contracting a disease". The main point that I agree with in this article is, "There's always this fear that somehow, if we do it, we're going to accidentally make something horrible, because only nature can really do it right". I think it is best for us to just let nature play its course and don't interfere.

    Kevin C.
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think the resurrection of extinct species is sort of like fighting fire with fire. his is because the whole reason that many species are extinct is because of human interference with nature and the natural order of things. To mess with natural order again in order to fix this problem would just mess things up further, in my opinion. In the article it says, "Scientists predict that changes made by human beings to the composition of the atmosphere could kill off a quarter of the planet’s mammal species." I think we should worry now about stopping future extinctions from happening than bringing back species that the earth has already adjusted to living without.
    Jennifer G.
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  43. As opposed to many blog posts prior to this one, I find it incredibly difficult to pick a side as there are many benefits, but also many disadvantages to restoring extinct species to life. First and foremost, however, we have to ask ourselves if we are “playing God,” here, and that’s where things get complicated; are we stepping over the boundaries of nature, or are we just simply advancing our technology? Putting this thought aside for the time being, I’ll mention the positive aspects of resurrecting extinct animals.
    As the article stated, there are many benefits from bringing these animals back to life; they can teach us about illnesses in the past (and how to cure them if they happen to resurface), various geographical and climate change patterns, and they could help restore balance to the environment today, oddly enough. It says, “Just as the loss of a species decreases the richness of an ecosystem, the addition of new animals could achieve the opposite effect.” The article goes on to list various ways particular animals could do this (i.e. Wooly Mammoths encouraging the growth of grasses which would aid in the protection of the Arctic permafrost from melting, passenger pigeons assisting in the prevention of lime disease, etc). This is great said and done, but what about the other affects? How will the animals living in the climate with the Wooly Mammoth react to it? Will there be a significant shift in the ecosystem? What if other species become extinct because of this, or what if a type of another species takes over the ecosystem? These are questions that are left unanswered, because, quite frankly, we don’t know the answer, nor will we know the answer until anything actually happens. Are we willing to take that risk?
 In addition to the concerns previously mentioned, there are also many drawbacks and substantial points argued by the oppositional party. They say blatantly that these animals are gone for a reason. If the ecosystem then wasn’t able to support them, what makes you think it will be able to support them now? Another growing concern is that these animals will be born deformed, and flawed. They may have medical problems and live in pain, or be born and die almost immediately (like the mountain goat that died of a lung deformity). This could be seen as a form of animal cruelty; it’s morally wrong.
    My standpoint is somewhat varied, as I don’t support either side completely. In my opinion, if we are to bring back certain species, there should be a 100 year extinction gap, if not a smaller one. By having this, we can bring back the animals, and they would have a better chance of fitting in with the ecosystems existing today, and not throwing off the balance completely. One quote from the article really sums up my feelings about this topic: "There's always this fear that somehow, if we do it, we're going to accidentally make something horrible, because only nature can really do it right”. What are we going to do if this happens? We can’t kill the creatures, as a.) it would be morally wrong, and b.) we spent a great deal of money bringing them back to life.

    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree- this is a hard topic to take a stance on. Good point about the "100 year extinction gap."

      Delete
  44. Caroline M.
    Period 2
    As interesting as this topic is, we must ask ourselves the question; "Is this realistic?" Is bringing back extinct animals truly possible. I don't think we have the information and research to truly answer this. But, the animals that are no longer walking planet Earth may not be here any longer for a reason. If they were extinct once then they will just become extinct again. Do we really want to wast our money on trying something that will end up failing in the end? This money can be going somewhere better that will benefit the USA more. Like is said before, we may be better off without the already extinct animals. This is because, ‘Nature makes monsters. Nature makes threats. Many of the things that are most threatening to us are a product of nature.’ These animals are from nature. Since the didn't survive they must of not have been the fittest. We can't temper with the past. It's behind us for a reason. Lets not resurrect animals for studies or for the ecosystem. Lets find other ways to help our Earth and lets find other things to research. I see no reason to bring back the dead. I don't see this experiment working successfully let alone at all.

    ReplyDelete
  45. In my opinion the idea of resurrecting extinct species is not completely realistic or the best option right now for us. It seems as though species have gone extinct because of us and now we want to use our powers to bring them back? Maybe we shouldn't have tampered with nature in the first place. A major pro of bringing back these animals are the scientific discoveries that would come along with it. This new knowledge can be used in many medical areas and will most definitely change the face of science forever. A con to this is that it is taking away focus to what is actually important right now. A more pressing issue is caring for the species that are going extinct today. We should focus our energy on saving species like polar bears and whales and after that maybe we could go back and look at saving the wooly mammoths.
    Elena Muniz Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ahmad Zaidi
    Period 6

    In my opinion there is nothing wrong with bringing back extinct animals if they are controlled in a strict manner so they could not get back to the wild. The extinct animals would be really good for research and for entertainment in a controlled environment. But letting them out in the wild will probably cause damage to the equilibrium and destroy many current species. For example it says in the article “ A revived passenger pigeon might be a vector for modern diseases." This shows how even a small pigeon has a risk of spreading disease and disrupting nature. So we should really consider the effects of a revived species on our current ecosystem before actually reviving them.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Prior to reading the article, I found resurrection to be a very interesting idea, however, after reading the article and gaining more knowledge on the topic, I found that the de-extinction of animals may cause many issues and may lead to larger problems. In the article, the author states,"Scientists predict that changes made by human beings to the composition of the atmosphere could kill off a quarter of the planet’s mammal species." This is one of the many examples of how resurrection could affect other wildlife on the planet. Bringing back extinct animals could also have a negative impact on the habitats and ecosystem of other animals. For example, there would be major disruptions in food chains and this may lead to a lack of living space for other animals. In conclusion, I believe that although resurrection seems like an interesting idea and could allow us to gain more knowledge on animals we were unable to see, it could severely impact species alive today, only creating bigger and more concerning issues. Therefore, I do not believe it is worth taking the risk.

    Harjot B
    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  48. I think that the idea of bringing back extinct animals has both its pros and its cons like many things. One of the obvious pros is the opportunity to observe, study, and learn from extinct animals, a chance we have never had before. We could actually learn a good deal from this especially exactly why they may have gone extinct in the first place.But also the fact that future generations would be getting such an amazing gift, to be able to learn from a young age about these animals, not a things that were but as things that are; something not even we could do. There are some cons with this idea though. For example that fact that the general ecosystem has most likely adapted after so long without these animals, and if they were to start to spread around in the wild, this could damage the food chain and general system of a lot of places. Also for example with what happened with the pigeons how they were "hunted for their meat...for their oil and feathers; and sport". There is no guarantee that if we brought these animals back something like this would not happen to all of them and they would just go extinct again, making all the money and resources used to bring them back wasted.
    Leah B Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  49. The idea of being able to resurrect animals that have gone extinict sounds awesome. As i was reading more of the article I started to have more concerns. There are both pros and cons to this. The carrier pigeon used to make up a large part of the bird population. Its sad that it died off do to over hunting. If this happened and carrier pigeons were alive again, we would have to think about the repercussions. How would the carrier pigeon effect the food chain and the ecosystem it lives in? Would if take away another species by being alive again? These are all imoprtant concerns. Putting a species back into the ecosytem could be a bad idea. "The creation of novel organisms, like new animals, plants and bacteria, will transform human medicine, agriculture, energy production and much else" This won't only effect the environment but other things too. Its crucial we understand the both good and bad effects that could come from this.
    Rachel C per 6

    ReplyDelete
  50. I think the idea of bringing an extinct animal back to life is both exciting and frightening at the same time. I wouldn't mind the experiment but I would have to be assured that every precaution had been taken. One quote reads, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This shows how complicated the situation really is. Although I think resurrecting animals would provide for new scientific discoveries and advance it also poses dangers and difficulties to life as we know it.
    Cassidy M. Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  51. ordyn B. Period 2
    There is a lot to be said about the de-extinction of animals. To me, this is one of those types of things that can be greatly beneficial, but in the hands of humans will almost surely be taken too far. The main thing that stood out to me about the article was when it stated, "Another theory held that every passenger pigeon had joined a single megaflock and disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle." This and the other theories preceding it show that the passenger pigeon may not be extinct at all, why bring something back that may not be gone? There are a few reasons that de-extinction could be very pertinent, and these situations are ones that were specifically caused by the hands of humans. For example, an animal that we have hunted for its fur or tusks, and caused to go extinct, deserve to have a second chance and we should give them that chance because it was our fault in the first place. But when they say things like, "It would surely be very cool to see a living woolly mammoth.” I begin to doubt that this process would be simple used for that reason. I do not want to see a wooly mammoth alive again because it is not meant to be around today. The same way dinosaurs were taken out by nature, woolly mammoths are not here today. Bringing such beasts back into our world will cause much more harm then good. Jurassic park failed in three movies, why would it work in real life when movies are supposed to be the ones showing us what we wish could be done? We already have a problem with over population of human beings, why put more stress on the world, let alone danger.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The notion of bringing back extinct animals is one that is often met with skepticism. I admit that when I first read the title of the article, I did not believe that such a task was possible, and if it was by some chance in fact possible, that it would be years until the technology was advanced enough to actually fulfill the task. However, upon reading the article, I saw how wrong I was. Not only is the technology not that far off, but science has been able to bring back a species of goat that went extinct in 2000, even though it may have only been for a few minutes. With this technology so close, I began to think about the impact that this could have on the world. How would habitats react to the sudden reintroduction of a species, and would it be for the better, or would it hurt the area? These questions immediately came to mind while reading, and I soon found the answer. The article states, "The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help the arctic permafrost from melting." This could be very important, considering the permafrost contains extremely high amounts of carbon. For reasons like this, it could be very beneficial to bring certain species back. On the other hand, species can be invasive and disrupt current ecosystems and cause more harm than good. Because of this, mankind must be very careful with how they tamper with nature. Although bringing animals back could b very cool, and even beneficial, it also has its downsides. In short, I believe that if science were to bring back species from extinction, their existence would have to be closely monitored and controlled.

    ReplyDelete
  53. According to Daniel Simberloff,'"Technofixes for environmental problems are band-aids for massive hemorrhages. To the extent that the public, who will never be terribly well informed on the larger issue, thinks that we can just go and resurrect a species, it is extremely dangerous. . . . De-extinction suggests that we can technofix our way out of environmental issues generally, and that’s very, very bad."' I can't help but agree with Mr. Simberloff. The public will be misinformed much like every other government issue. In this case, I believe if the environment will change, if we are de-extincting animals, plants, people deserve to know. People deserve a voice and a choice. Sure it may "scare" the public, but better to let the public know the truth, rather than a real life experience like a random Wooly Mammoth on the street someday ( unlikely to happen, I know). The problem is that this species would have to recalibrate back into the ecosystem and back into the food chain. The passenger pigeon was killed off by hunters, how do we know its not going to happen again? This could blow up and be a big waste of resources and money. Not only that but also the more we bring back from the supposed "dead" the more population people are adding to our overpopulated Earth. Plus how are we to know if there is a place fit for a Wooly Mammoth. Clearly this is no longer the ice age, and with growing climate issues and global warming, is it even "cold" enough for a Wooly Mammoth to survive? Things happen for a reason. Maybe extinction was just supposed to be extinction. Maybe we shouldn't just bandage a BIG hemorrhage. Resurrection and immortality go hand in hand. If researchers learn how to resurrect, eventually humans won't die. Then this Earth will over fill. This could essentially be the gate or the domino to start the effect. This big technofix or de-extinction is one big issue that simply puts a lot at stake. The question is it worth it? Are people going to bring back species that were meant to be extinct? Why are these animals extinct? Are they meant to be extinct? This could turn into a colossal problem. This procedure has too many risks and hesitations and not enough certainty. Right now resurrection is morally wrong and impossible to predict.No one can predict what might happen in these labs. What if it becomes Jurassic Park? There is too many I don't knows and as Simberloff mentioned,it is extremely dangerous. Things happen for a reason. Maybe the extinct are supposed to stay extinct.
    Miranda S. Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bringing back extinct animals is a very controversial topic. While many believe we have the technology to achieve this, it is debated whether or not we should. There are many things that could go wrong. For example, the animal could act completely different than we expect, and could cause some serious damage. In the article, it says "If you imagine a strand of DNA as a book, then the DNA of a long-dead animal is a shuffled pile of torn pages, some of the scraps as long as a paragraph, others a single sentence or just a few words. The scraps are not in the right order, and many of them belong to other books.” This shows that while the animal could be brought back, we have no idea how it will react to people or what it will do. There are so many things that could go wrong, and it almost isn't even worth trying.

    ReplyDelete
  55. In my opinion resurrection of extinct animals would be a great idea if it was held to certain boundaries. My first reason being that carrying out the entire process would be extremely expensive. Also I would have to be assured that every precaution had been taken. One quote reads, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This shows that this can be a lengthy process .A more pressing issue is caring for the species that are going extinct today. Why don't we spend time on saving the species on our planet now before bringing back old ones? It may be worth a try, but not until we fix our current problems first.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think that the resurrection of extinct animals is a good idea. It's kind of a scary thought that we could bring an extinct animal back, but it could in fact benefit our environment. Although it might be expensive it's well worth it. The article states, "The grazing habits of mammoths, for instance, might encourage the growth of a variety of grasses, which could help to protect the Arctic permafrost from melting — a benefit with global significance, as the Arctic permafrost contains two to three times as much carbon as the world’s rain forests." So bringing back these mammoths could benefit the environment and slow down global warming, which would be great. Also this process could help us save other species from going extinct. "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This means we could be very capable of saving other species, as well as bringing back some of the older ones.
    Teagan Mockus
    period 6

    ReplyDelete
  57. I feel that the Resurrection of animals would be interesting to see, but like many others have said how much would this experiment cost? Scientist already know why these animals have become extinct and the environmental factors that caused their death. There would be no new beneficial research. One quote says, "What is coming is will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct animals." These means that this process will take a lot of time and money to complete. They say that we have the technology and capability to complete this new experiment but i think the public has to be given the pros of cons of it. Will the animals take over land?, Will they act differently?, and what will this experiment cost the public? Although the resurrection of extinct animals would be exciting it can also be very dangerous.
    Michaela S Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  58. Though the fact that mankind has comes this far scientifically is impressive, there is no real reason to bring these animals back. And even if we succeeded, what would we do with these animal? Where would we put them? It would be very hard to reintroduce these species back into ecosystems that have changed so much since these animals were last on earth. For example, the wooly mammoth became extinct after the last Ice Age. Modern climate would not support them. Modern species have adapted and newly introduced species will disrupt the current food chains. Also, as resources and land become more scarce as human populations increase, it seems irresponsible to create these large animals which would only add to the problem. The article states that “ One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success." How is creating 100,000 mammoths a success? Beyond the “wow” factor and possible scientific research, these mammoths would be a burden on us in every way. Yes, it is in some ways tragic that these species are now extinct, especially if humans were the main contributing factor. However, we are trying to solve this problem the way we always do: we as humans try to remedy the symptoms rather than the disease. Modern humans and human activities have increased the rate of extinction by 10,000x. If we put this funding towards protecting threatened or endangered species, it would make a larger impact and be a better use of money. Though de-extinction is a fascinating endeavor, curiosity is not a good enough reason to try to bring animals like the woolly mammoth back.
    Skylar Sandler
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point Skylar: "curiosity is not a good enough reason to try to bring animals like the woolly mammoth back."

      Delete
  59. Jackson Mariotti
    Period 6
    The idea of de-extinction is truly fascinating. There are some cons to this, like the costs and the possibilities of it going wrong. This is shown in Jurassic Park, but that is an extreme example. I think in this case the pros outnumber the cons. We have a chance to focus on the environment. This would be beneficial to the environment, and it is about time we stop hurting it and start helping it. To make an animal go extinct is a terrible thing and now that we have an opportunity to fix what we did, we should take it. In the article it states that "If the new, synthetically created bird enriches the ecology of the forests it populates, few people, including conservationists, will object". This shows that the birds will ameliorate the ecosystem of forests. Some people are worried about "playing god" but that should not be a concern. The advancement of technology will always be questioned, but more often than not it is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. We are trying to play God in order to correct what we have destroyed. Humanity is responsible for the majority of animals that have gone extinct and what bothers me about the resurrection of these species that we have destroyed is that we are not doing it for the species, but for the benefit of seeing "cute animals" as stated by the ethicist Hank Greely and the law professor Jacob Sherkow, both of Stanford, "This may be the biggest attraction and possibly the biggest benefit of de-extinction. It would surely be very cool to see a living woolly mammoth.” Whether or not we are doing the right things, the majority of us are doing them for the wrong reasons. If we were to do this we should keep in mind that these animals are the top priority and that the treatment of these species are the main concern here. I would not advocate this is it would mean that these animals (who are not being bred to be domesticated) would be living in cages all day. Putting aside the animal's rights, it would be beneficial to the species as a whole if they had interaction with an environment of some sort (ie. an aviary for the birds) in order to prepare them for the release into the wild.
    That being said, I am not opposed to this experiment. By human interference in the natural ecosystem through processes like deforestation and drilling for oil and even legal/illegal poaching we have created an unnatural balance in the ecosystem that can cause the distinction of even more species until it is an unsustainable balance.According to WWF, 0.1% of all species become extinct every year.Accordig to The Center for Biological Diversity, in the Gulf Oil Spill alone, more then 102 species of birds have been harmed as well as many fish and sea turtles. (I will post the in depth web link on the bottom of this post.)
    As the cause of this disaster, as well as many others I feel as though it's time for humanity to take some responsibility for it's actions. We need to give back to the environment what it has given to us. We need to correct what we have broken and we need to make sure we make the Earth a better place for ALL of its inhabitable species.
    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/a_deadly_toll.html
    Shoshanna Longo
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point about the Gulf Oil Spill!

      Delete
  61. At first glance this discovery is a major wow! Many people want to think about bringing animals we've never gotten the chance to see back to life. This would allow generations to come the ability to see what the Earth has brought about in its short life time. This would also allow us to bring about creatures and plants that could help the environment or bring about a predator that would kill off an invasive species. There is limitless potential for what could be accomplished through "What is coming is will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct animals." The problem is that may come into being is that these species may actually be extremely detrimental to the environment. What are we going to do if there are hundreds of T rexs rampaging through the branford green!? We would have to keep a close eye on what would going on when each species is brought back otherwise they would get out of control and everything would just die off again. However, in my opinion the pros weigh out the cons and we could learn so much more from them.
    Sonny G. Pr. 6

    ReplyDelete
  62. Like it seems everyone else has said it would be really interesting and existing if we could bring back extinct animals so we could study and research them. Or just have them back in the ecosystem. But there are a lot of draw backs to this. While it would be nice and even cool to have extinct animals alive today the ecosystems have evolves on without them so to add the creatures back into the wild would upset preexisting ecosystems. Also the creations of these extinct animals takes long amounts of time and money. Just the sequencing of DNA is taking them a really long time. As they say, "Beth Shapiro, one of the scientists who runs the lab, began to sequence the species’ DNA in 2001, a decade before Brand had his big idea." And they still aren't done with it. That is just the beginning. This amount of money could be more easy be put into more pressing maters than long dead animals. That probably in this ecosystem would just die off again. I mean some of these animals are dead for reasons as in the couldn't adapted to the conditions around them.
    Samantha Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  63. Like it seems everyone else has said it would be really interesting and existing if we could bring back extinct animals so we could study and research them. Or just have them back in the ecosystem. But there are a lot of draw backs to this. While it would be nice and even cool to have extinct animals alive today the ecosystems have evolves on without them so to add the creatures back into the wild would upset preexisting ecosystems. Also the creations of these extinct animals takes long amounts of time and money. Just the sequencing of DNA is taking them a really long time. As they say, "Beth Shapiro, one of the scientists who runs the lab, began to sequence the species’ DNA in 2001, a decade before Brand had his big idea." And they still aren't done with it. That is just the beginning. This amount of money could be more easy be put into more pressing maters than long dead animals. That probably in this ecosystem would just die off again. I mean some of these animals are dead for reasons as in the couldn't adapted to the conditions around them.
    Samantha Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  64. The extinction of species occurs naturally. 99% of all of the species that ever existed are extinct now. Yes, a few of those may have been quickened by humans, but we are not the cause. We have the scientific knowledge we need about the species, so what purpose would resurrecting them be? It is a waste of money and resources, not to mention unnatural. These species have gone extinct because they can no longer survive on Earth. Ecosystems have now adapted to their absence, and adaptive radiation has occurred, a phenomena that allows other species to evolve to fill the gaps left in an ecosystem after extinctions occur. The problem with bringing these species back is that it would disrupt the new ecosystems. Although some people just want to bring them back to put on display, some will undoubtedly try to reintroduce them, which will cause many problems. People are already arguing: "The first question posed by conservationists addresses the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared." The answer is that it is illogical, and an unnecessary waste. Jessica L period 6

    ReplyDelete
  65. My opinion is that while the idea of bringing back to life extinct animals is interesting, it has many issues and can be counterproductive. The recreation of animals that died off years ago would take a lot of money and time. Money and time that could go to something more productive like fuel creation or discovery and harvest. Cloning animals can be harmful to the environment. As, the article said the environment is the way it is in its current state to make what is currently living survive. The climate and oxygen saturation etc. could have been very different when mammoths were walking the earth. Extinction is a natural part of every species and scientists should not mess around with it.
    Tyler M
    Period 7

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think the idea of bringing back extinct species sounds really cool and valuable on the surface, however it could bring along negative effects. These animals became extinct for a reason- either from competition between other species or humans and bringing them back could bring back new problems. We don't know how these species would react now so even if they would soon become extinct again. New species are being created all the time to replace the extinct ones. Bringing these animals back would be a waste of resources and money that could be put to better use someplace else. Resurrection of extinct species would be fascinating but it comes with consequences and just isn't worth it.

    Eleanor Hall
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think bringing the extinct animals back would be really cool; but at the same time it would be dangerous because if it does work then we have to find a place big enough to put these growing giants. And here's another thing to think about what are we going to feed these animals, we can't put them out in the wild! They would either be killed or they would wipe out ecosystems and put other animals at risk, and then it would go even more down hill from there. "Beth Shapiro, one of the scientists who runs the lab, began to sequence the species’ DNA in 2001, a decade before". From the article you can see that people have been trying but they haven't been going anywhere, probably because of money, utilities and just the time it takes to find and/or make the DNA from these fossils. Takes longer than anticipated and Brand and the entire society probably won't have the patients for it.
    I think it would be a really cool idea but, in the long run I don't think the animals would make it or the animals would kill off ecosystems.
    Lauren Andrews
    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think that the thought and action of bringing back extinct is not a very good idea. First off, the problems that the animals from back in the ice age, meaning mammoths, could cause a major problem in our planets ecosystem. The food chain would be all screwed up. Not only that, but animals we have today, are an evolved species. Mammoths are a species from back in times when it was colder, and they had a very specific way of obtaining food. If we stuck them in a world with much cooler climate, different animals, and with the kind of ecosystem we have? we could essentially be resurrecting a species JUST to make sure they go extinct once more.
    Besides the whole ecosystem problem, there's also the danger it could bring. Referencing a science fiction movie (which i find appropriate considering the circumstances are becoming reality) "Jurassic Park", I'd say that the danger of a dangerous species we know next to nothing about, might cause a lot of catastrophic problems. Now not to say that anyone is going to create a theme park with real dinosaurs, but in time, after we test bringing back mammoths, humans, being the curious catastrophes we are, will end up trying to sequence the DNA of other species, such as giant reptiles from 65 billion years ago.
    Essentially, my opinion on the matter is that no, we should not be doing this. it could cause many problems in our ecosystem, as well as be extremely dangerous to pretty much everything.
    -Chris Dormer
    Period 8

    ReplyDelete
  69. It's incredible that scientist have developed the technology to ressurect extinct species. This process could further humanity's ability to understand genetics in ways we never dreamed! I think that it is wronge to give up opportunities to gain knowledge especially for "religious reasons." We are not playing God. We are scientists working hard to understand how life works so that we can use that understanding to better the world. There was I time when people claimed that the work of doctors was sinful because it gave them the power to save and restore life. Obviously, this was nonsense. If we had stopped there, the history of the human race would have taken a completely different, more painful course. However, I also believe that the scientists should further their research before they attempt any more resurrections. In the article, it is revealed the first cloned mammal "...didn’t live long. After struggling to breathe for several minutes, the kid choked to death." This was a very cruel situation. It was brought into the world only to die a very painful death. In our quest for knowledge, we must remember to maintain our humanity and work our hardest to protect these new creatures.
    Iana W
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  70. After reading this article, I believe that there is little benefit in having making the extinct animals come to life. Although I am not a very religious person, I do not like the idea of humanity creating animals from labs and cloning. If mammoths and the extinct pigeons could not survive on Earth, wouldn't they die off and become extinct again? The mammoths would also need a habitat and they must be able to survive on their own with natural climates. Darwin's theory of evolution states Individuals with characteristics which increase their probability of survival will have more opportunities to reproduce and their offspring will also benefit from the heritable, advantageous character. So over time these variants will spread through the population. These species could not adapt over time and over the changes of the nature, that is why they became extinct.
    Although, the resurrection of extinct animals may provide scientific advancement and knowledge about genetics to help more people, I do not think it's necessary, when we have millions of undiscovered animals roaming on planet earth. I think we as humans need to learn to save the animals who are in the brink of extinction instead of 'resurrecting' dead species.
    In my opinion, there is not much pros about this new research. We as human beings made most of these animals extinct and it is likely, especially now with thousands of factories that cause air pollutants and global warming, that the passenger pigeons may go extinct again. Another issue that I would like to arise is the financial cost that this the resurrection of extinct animals will cause. As a nation, about 15% of our country is living in poverty, or on welfare, and some do not have health care providers. To strengthen our nation, we must first be concerned about our citizens and not scientific projects. We can invest the money that would go into this research to create new jobs and give financial support to the poor. We could even invest the money on cancer research or new treatments for illnesses. David Haussler, the co-founder of the Genome 10K Project, states,“There’s always this fear that somehow, if we do it, we’re going to accidentally make something horrible, because only nature can really do it right." The fact that the scientists can 'accidentally' create something horrible that can cause diseases, and even threats to us is astounding.The animals may be "born" with genetic mutations or deformity, which can cause them to die off. It is most definitely ironic how these scientists are enforcing animal cruelty while bringing the the extinct animals to life. If you are going to kill to make mend for another research or project then I do not think it justifies your actions! All in all, I very much oppose the idea of de-extinction, although the article was fascinating and interesting.

    Reitsuma Panta
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  71. There might be a bit more of an eloquent way to say this, but bringing a mammoth to life would just be plain old freaking sweet. Imagine being able to look at a woolly mammoth... Something no creature has been able to do for 10,000 years. Imagine if on the process of resurrecting this one creature we discover a simple, easy process, and are able to reintroduce many more extinct but environmentally beneficial species back into the world, undoing some of the damage humans have done to the Earth's biodiversity. I really hope I get to stand in the presence of a woolly mammoth someday.
    Aaron R
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post made me smile..."bringing a mammoth to life would just be plain old freaking sweet." Be sure to quote from the article.

      Delete
  72. After reading this I believe bringing back species that that lived a long time ago is an excellent idea. And I do not believe this something to discuss. Obviously there are some things that might be questioning, such as the fact that they died might be caued by the earth not being a sustainable place for them to llive anymore. Eventually I would believe they would die again even though we tried, and it would cost a lot of resources to do this, but how awesome isnt it! We could be able to see animals that look nothing like the ones we have today, and the income from the places where they had these animals would be so high that doing research on this wouldn.t be so expensive. Its a great idea,
    I would also refer to the article with this:‘Nature makes monsters. Nature makes threats. Many of the things that are most threatening to us are a product of nature.’ This quote by David Haussler mentions the fact that if we bring these animals back they might be ablle to destroy stuff and become something uncontrollable. WE cant really know how strong these animals were and this might kill us in the end.

    Christian Frich
    period 6

    ReplyDelete
  73. As a general statement I do not believe that we should be resurrecting extinct species from the past. There are exceptions to my belief but for the most part I don't believe we should be jumping on the bandwagon for this technology just yet because its not practical or useful for us. Many species that have gone extinct have gone extinct for a reason, they weren't able to handle the changing environment around them. So bringing these creatures back would be giving them a second death sentence because history would just repeat itself. And we shouldn't be allocating large sums of money into research and development for a project that is biologically destined to fail. Where the exception comes along is for species that became extinct because we, humans altered their environment for the worst. I believe that extinct species that are keystone species, meaning that they are imperative for the survival of said ecosystem because the intricate systems that it is composed of are dependent on this one species. These species are worth all the resources that would be used to revive and resurrect them because doing so would prevent the extinct of other species and foster the preservation of ecosystems. As the article states, "Just as the loss of a species decreases the richness of an ecosystem, the addition of new animals could achieve the opposite effect." So to critique this statement the addition of specific new animals could achieve the opposite effect. Not all new introductions to an ecosystem could prove to be beneficial no matter how interesting an animal is. In fact it could even cause more harm than good if it becomes an alien species that takes resources and habitats way from the native species that reside there.
    Justin Campos
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  74. I don't think that it is a good idea. It may sound cool and something that everyone would like to see but it can just cause a lot of chaos. in the article it says, "One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success.” This is basically saying that to do this they would need to make more then enough Wooly mammoths for the space that we have for them. This idea may help us with global warming but it is a waste of time. we will have way too many animals that aren't supposed to actually be here as to what we already have. Another thing is that Taking the DNA from a closely related animal and using all the stuffed specimens from the museums and things like that could change the outcome of the animal. I don't think that it is a good idea to do this.
    Chaylea Finn
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think that resurrecting extinct animals would be an interesting idea, but also a dangerous one. The article states, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." This portrays that there is far more to this than just resurrecting animals. Resurrecting these animals will be very costly and in a poor economy it doesn't seem smart to spend money on things like this. Also you don't know how these animals will alter the ecosystem and how they will act in our current environment. It could have a really negative affect on society and the environment. Overall I think it is a big risk to take.

    Joe Roca
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  76. Bringing back extinct animal species would definitely be interesting and a new scientific breakthrough, but i feel as if the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to this topic of interest. One, the process in order to bring back extinct animals is outrageously expensive. So expensive that it would almost seem foolish to bring back these animal who have already been gone for years. The biggest reason as to why we shouldn't fund to bring extinct species back is the environment. say we bring back the Mammoth, the Mammoth hasn't been around for thousands of years, the environment is not the same as it was years ago. Yes you Could keep the Mammoth at a zoo, but that wouldn't be right. If and when these animals are released into the wild, the food chain would be all out of sort. These animals would be eating things that other animals are supposed to eat, and the extinct animals are not going to have any predators as well. You cant just introduce a new species into an ecosystem and expect for everything to maintain a healthy balance. Are we bringing back an extinct species, yes, but who knows how many species will die off because of it?

    Riley O
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  77. I don't think bringing extinct animals back to life would be a good idea. It would be kind of cool to see them back to life but I believe that it would just mess up the lives of other animals and might even scare some people. Obviously these animals are extinct for a reason and aren't meant to be brought back to life. Seeing animals walking around that haven't been on earth for a while would be odd to many people and even if they were brought back to life I don't think it would last long and they'd just become extinct again.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I found resurrection to be a very fascinating thing, however, after reading the article and gaining more knowledge on the topic, I found that the de-extinction of animals may cause many problems and may lead to larger complications. In the article, the author states, “Scientists predict that changes made by human beings to the composition of the atmosphere could kill off a quarter of the planet’s mammal species." This is one of the many examples of how resurrection could affect other wildlife on the planet. Bringing back extinct animals could also have a negative impact on the habitats and ecosystem of other animals. If we were to bring back extinct animals, there would be major disruptions in food chains and this may lead to a lack of living space for other animals. All in all, resurrection could allow us to gain more knowledge on animals we were unable to see, it could severely impact species alive today, only creating bigger and more concerning issues. Therefore, I do not believe it is worth taking the risk.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I find resurrection to be a mindless topic. After reading the article I think scientists aren't asking themselves too many important questions that they should be for example, "Where would we put them?", "What happened to their habitat in the first place that contributed to the extinction?", etc. In my opinion, everything happens for a reason. If the animals that became extinct are gone, there is a reason for that.
    Tatiana H
    Per 8

    ReplyDelete
  80. I have many different opinions on this topic of bringing back extinct animals. I do think that we shouldn't bring back any animal no matter what it is. It can affect other animals and even other humans. I like the idea of it, but if it actually happened I'm sure many people would fear them. I learned about bringing back extinct animals in biology last year. They brought back a sheep a believe the name was Dolly, it was kind of like a clone but she only died in 7 minutes. In the text it says, "The first question posed by conservationists addresses the logic of bringing back an animal whose native habitat has disappeared. Why go through all the trouble just to have the animal go extinct all over again?" I agree with this. We shouldn't spend so much money and put so much work into something that's just going to be extinct again.

    Taylor Miller
    Period 7

    ReplyDelete
  81. Though it may seem that bringing extinct animals back to life is a bad idea (Yes it comes with bad side effects, but so does everything). Personally I think this would be awesome, to be able to see or even interact with an animal that has been extinct for thousands of years would be remarkable. The article does suggest that this could be a dangerous idea by stating "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." but honestly I don't really think it will. I'm sure the government or whatever agency resurrects these extinct animals will have some sort of plan to ensure the safety of the planet and life on this planet. So overall I say do it, because I want to ride a Mammoth.
    Aodhan Dunn
    Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ben G
    Period 6
    On the discussion of morality, I don't think the debate should stem just on the topic of bringing extinct animals back to life. The thing is with discoveries such as this is they could set a dangerous president. While we may deem this to be moral, whos to say how others might act in the future. To cite the article, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species." We have to think about those to come after us. We have to think about the bigger picture. So while I don't see harm in scientifically reviving some extinct species for research purposes, I think it is everyone's best interest to not.

    ReplyDelete
  83. In my opinion, the resurrection of a Mammoth would be a truly exciting experience, to interact and even watch it live and grow. All though there will be dangers, as the article warns us, "What is coming will go well beyond the resurrection of extinct species". I believe that the pros outweigh the cons in this situation, and if we were to bring back Mammoths, it would be a refreshing and revitalizing move for nature.
    Aidan D
    Per 6

    ReplyDelete
  84. The idea of bringing extinct animals back to life is exciting and seems like the basis for a sci-fi movie. Bringing back species that humans have forced into extinction would be ethical, but might not be the most environmentally responsible. If the saber toothed tiger were to suddenly be surged into re existence, there would be some serious consequences. This further meddling of the natural processes(even though we offset them already) would only hurt or ecosystems. Keeping extinct animals extinct seems like the only way to ensure that unwanted consequences do not occur.
    Emma P per6

    ReplyDelete
  85. Pat Cunningham
    Period 7
    I think that we shouldn't bring the extinct animals back to life because they were put into extinction for a reason. There must have been something wrong with them or they started to over populate the world. So I do not think that it would be the smartest thing to bring extinct animals back to life. Most of the people would not know what they are and would probably kill them any way because they look like monsters to them. So all in all I do not believe that it is a good idea. Also like said above in Emma's post "Keeping extinct animals extinct seems like the only way to ensure that unwanted consequences do not occur."

    ReplyDelete
  86. Though it has its merits, I don't believe the revival of extinct species is necessary.
    I am of the belief that once a species becomes extinct, it should remain that way.
    Sure, it'd be astounding to see a mammoth in the flesh, but is it truly humane to revive the animal?
    It certainly couldn't be released into the wild for the risk of it becoming invasive or going extinct again, meaning that scientists would have to confine its existence to an environment which would not be it's natural habitat.
    I don't think that research is worth billions of dollars because it is ultimately cruelty for curiosity's sake.

    Daniel Lalor
    p. 2

    ReplyDelete
  87. Although I believe that extensive research in genetics is something that needs to be seen in the scientific community, I do not think it would be wise to do something such as bring back a Wooly Mammoth. A much better option would be to bring back an animal that has very recently gone extinct. We would not know how to care for a Wooly Mammoth, which could cause multiple to die before it was finally discovered what the key is to make them thrive. If we brought back a more recently extinct animal, such as the Maideiran Large White Butterfly (which only went extinct in 2007) or the West African Black Rhinoceros (2006) they could be brought back to their natural habitats before the ecosystem had time to fully recover from the loss, and they would still have food sources and habitats. Even the passenger pigeon, as mentioned in the article, could potentially be a good candidate for being brought back. Overall, I am for bringing back extinct species, however there should be regulations put on it so that animals that have been extinct for thousands of years can not be brought back.
    Ahnna P2

    ReplyDelete