Essay Sample on De-Extinction

Humans have always had a fascination with animals. We keep them as pets and in zoos for our entertainment. We go on expeditions and safaris to see them in their natural habitats. This intense interest extends to species that went extinct thousands and millions of years ago--like dinosaurs and the sabre-toothed tiger. Now, this fascination is tempting scientists to try to bring back some of these extinct animals such as the wooly mammoth and the aurochs. But, human intrigue is not a reason to rewind evolution. De-extinction is a terrible idea; these animals have no place in present day life.

Body Para. 1

Ethically, de-extinction is far too questionable to even begin considering. The research has been done and most scientists are convinced that we were the cause of many of these animals dying out in the first place. Evidence shows “Humans move to a new place, [megafauna] suffer extinction.” (Source 1, Paragraph 15) If humans were the initial cause for many of these super-sized animals going extinct, then we have lost our privilege to share the world with them. De-extinction is a whim that allows people to live out their childhood fantasies of having gigantic animals for pets. That is not a justifiable reason for bringing them back into existence; it’s just selfish. Even if scientists are looking at the possibility of de-extinction as a means of helping to save endangered species, there will inevitably be individuals that will want to “use the technology for commercial purposes.” (Source 2, Paragraph 13) Besides being selfish, humans are notoriously greedy. The world is already covered with zoos and aquariums that lock up animals for our viewing pleasure. There are already countless arguments of the ethics of zoos for keeping animals in enclosures a fraction of the size of their natural environment. That problem will only become worse when we have larger-than-life novelty animals that were once extinct. How will exhibits ever be large enough for these animals?

Body Para. 2

Supposing that scientists managed to keep these no longer extinct animals from being locked up, de-extinction will still lead to catastrophic results for these beasts because their world does not exist anymore. Besides the obvious of them having lived in a time before buildings and roads and 7 billion people, they would be “released into a world with no natural predators” or others of their species. (Source 2, Paragraph 12)  How can scientists anticipate the repercussions of reintroducing aurochs or mammoths or even mammoth-elephant hybrids into the environment? There are too many unknown factors such as how they would interact and affect other species, whether they would have the right type of food or enough of it, or whether the conditions of today would allow them to be healthy. Some scientists argue that “without proper preparation the animals might only become extinct again.” (Source 3, Paragraph 14) Then we would be right back where we started. There are some organizations that believe bringing back these animals would be a way to re-stabilize ecosystems that have gone out of sync with the end of the megafauna. However, without major conservation efforts, this problem would not be solved just by reintroducing fvv b one previously extinct species. There are too many other factors. Humans can’t even keep the species we currently have alive. It does not make sense to bring other species back just to watch them die again.

Concl.

Animal fascinations are selfish indulgences that we justify in the name of conservation. De-extinction isn’t conservation. It’s a process that would have much farther reaching consequences than we can even imagine. There are too many unknowns in how these megafauna would be affected by the world as it exists today. Unless we are going to somehow convert the entire world back to its pre-human state, then there is no point in even considering de-extinction.