extinct animal

1. Should scientists bring back an extinct animal? What animals would you
bring back and why?
When the species was eliminated, the woods lost the major motor of their regulating cycle and
have never been the same. Reviving extinct keystone species, then, might help us conserve
biodiversity, and, potentially, the ecosystems as a whole. When the species was eliminated, the
woods lost the major motor of their regulating cycle and have never been the same. Reviving
extinct keystone species, then, might help us conserve biodiversity, and, potentially, the
ecosystems as a whole. Animals that are healthy and genetically vigorous may be returned to the
wild where they can reproduce normally and contribute positively to the ecosystem. So why not
bring back the dead? But it's not just about that!
The same procedures being developed to help bring back extinct species may also be utilized to
preserve endangered living species. The field of de-extinction is still in its infancy, yet it is
progressing quickly. The Pyrenean ibex, a kind of mountain goat that had been extinct for a few
years, was restored by European scientists in 2003. We'll never know how long it took to save
this poor ibex from extinction because she died just a few minutes after she was born.
Refinement and development of new de-extinction procedures have been in place since then.
For a variety of reasons, it's a good idea to bring back extinct creatures. When vanished species
are reintroduced, so are the functions they formerly played in the ecosystems in which they lived.
Others object to de-extinction because they believe it is unnatural. They are suspicious of genetic
engineering and believe that scientists are attempting to play god. Proponents, on the other hand,
claim that the methods being developed to reverse the trend of extinction already exist in nature.
When it comes to reproduction, some lizards are cloned and others have a rudimentary bacterial
immune system that is being employed to resurrect the mammoth. De-extinction researchers
anticipate that, like IVF, their methods will be embraced by the medical community once the
science behind them has been proven. Traditional conservation efforts are being underfunded
and overshadowed, De-extinction is not a priority for any of the major wildlife organizations,
and a major success story in the field of animal resuscitation may actually serve to increase
awareness of the suffering of animals throughout the globe, rather than diminish it. De-extinction
proponents acknowledge that it is too early to tell how the process will unfold, but they contend
that until we build the technology necessary to make it happen, we will never be able to judge its
value. Researchers found that diverting funds away from efforts to conserve extinct species and
instead investing them in initiatives that already exist to protect species in the wild would result
in a two- to eightfold increase in biodiversity. They argue that money should be used to save
current species from extinction rather than trying to save new species from becoming extinct.
One never knows whether the charm of de-extinction may catch the interest of a rich person or
business and lead to financial investment. The authors argue that if this money had been spent on
conservation projects of any kind, it would be a tiny victory for the planet's biodiversity.

2. According to first author Joseph Bennett from Carleton University in Ottawa: "Power to that
billionaire who merely wants to bring back a species from the dead." "It's dishonest, though, if
that billionaire is describing it as a conservation effort. With the same resources, it is possible to
preserve a large number of species that are in danger of extinction right now."
Tom McCauley, a recent author of criteria for choosing de-extinction species, the new data offers
a grim reminder. "The prevailing message in our research seems to be that performing de-
extinction a masse would be detrimental," he explains. What if something is not just socially and
environmentally questionable, but also prohibitively expensive? I'm out of here.
It's hard to deny that de-extinction as a concept is still very fantastic. Bennett summarizes the
paper's conclusions briefly as a conservation tool for tight budgets: In the end, it's preferable to
spend money on the living than on the deceased.