Hi. Welcome to the blog for my IB English B class at Jur Hronec High School in Bratislava, Slovakia. Below you will find links to other websites and discussion questions. My students are required to comment on one of these postings every month and also respond to each other's comments. Feel free to add your two bits, but be aware that all comments are monitored before being posted.
Is resurrecting extinct
species a good idea, or more trouble than it is worth?Can two wrongs make a right in terms of
interfering with nature?If we decide
to resurrect species, which ones make the best candidates?
I can say, with confidence, that as of now, cloning is not anything new. Our first true success was the sheep Dolly in 1996, which lived for six years during which she gave birth to six lambs. Humanity succeeded in imitating the nature. Some may find it blasphemous, but the truth is, the advances in genetics made in the recent years are of great importance to the people around the whole world.
The introduction of extinct species back into life is in fact only a tip of a floating iceberg, a carousel ride in an amusement park. The true potential lies within the technology that would be able to actually do such a thing. As it was fantasized in the article, culminating manipulation of genes could lead us to the genome of the mammoth. It was also noted that this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it illustrates an important point: manipulation of genes could prove to be, at the end of the day, omnipotent. Just like are plants enhanced against pests, and the chestnut would be enhanced against fungal blight, we can basically change any characteristic of an organism, be it morphological, or anatomical. That is why I think that it is not reviving dead animals that is interesting, but rather a “preservation of species with critical function, such as wild bees.”
It is this sentence that sums it up: “By the end of this century we will have much more control over life than we ever dreamed.” Now imagine a genetically modified rice, with added vitamin and improved surviving ability. That would be great, wouldn’t it? Golden rice is the realization of this imagination, and it already saved a great number of lives. What is more, what if we could do it with other basic food items? I am persuaded that genetic engineering is capable of what the world is not capable of today, and that is significantly reducing the world poverty. While seeing the passenger pigeon in the skies once again would surely be commendable, let us not stray away from the single, most important goal of the genetics (as I envision it) - to save the humanity.
Resurrecting extinct animal species? It’s unnatural to say the least. Isn’t the fact that these species died out evidence enough that when humans meddle into things they are not supposed to, it won’t end well?
What Ben Novak wants to do is resurrect a specific species of pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius. But what for? For the feeling that humanity is one step closer to ‘playing God’? His argument, apart from the fact that he has been fascinated with extinct birds from an early age, is that the massive amount of feces flocks of these pigeons produced helped sustain other forms of life. And yet, I cannot help but think this ‘rain of feces’ would create vast problems for the inhabitants of eastern North America. Moreover, if such a resurrection would be successful, which, according to the scientists cited in the article, would be very hard to achieve, how probable is that that the species will find its place in the ecosystem? As William Powell argued, its main habitat consisted of the extinct American chestnut. Does that mean that this tree is to be ‘resurrected’ too?
For arguments sake, let us say that the whole resurrection process would be successful, and the passenger pigeon will be on its way to peeling of its ‘extinct/endangered species’ label. But what about the other organisms? The whole food chain and ecosystem will be disrupted by the arrival of a new member. If flocks of these birds would be like biological storms again, then won’t other species suffer, maybe even become endangered as a result of this? And what will that mean for this team of scientists? Will they also be saving those species as well? In the end this would turn into a vicious cycle, and one way or another, someone/something will suffer.
In nature, as everywhere in the world, there needs to be balance. As another species evolves, another dies out because it wasn’t the fittest in terms of survival. It’s the natural cycle of life. Of course, I’m not saying it is okay for human beings to massacre other organisms just because they are the dominant ones. I just believe that we cannot assume that we can do anything just because we are capable of doing it. Resurrecting extinct species would probably only lead to momentary victory (“Yes! We could potentially go look at live dinosaurs locked up in cages at the Zoo!”) and then long-term negative consequences. I think it would be wiser to spend all the money that is being funded into such research in different areas or to keep funding this research but only for informative purposes, not hands-on experimentation.
I can say, with confidence, that as of now, cloning is not anything new. Our first true success was the sheep Dolly in 1996, which lived for six years during which she gave birth to six lambs. Humanity succeeded in imitating the nature. Some may find it blasphemous, but the truth is, the advances in genetics made in the recent years are of great importance to the people around the whole world.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of extinct species back into life is in fact only a tip of a floating iceberg, a carousel ride in an amusement park. The true potential lies within the technology that would be able to actually do such a thing. As it was fantasized in the article, culminating manipulation of genes could lead us to the genome of the mammoth. It was also noted that this may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it illustrates an important point: manipulation of genes could prove to be, at the end of the day, omnipotent. Just like are plants enhanced against pests, and the chestnut would be enhanced against fungal blight, we can basically change any characteristic of an organism, be it morphological, or anatomical. That is why I think that it is not reviving dead animals that is interesting, but rather a “preservation of species with critical function, such as wild bees.”
It is this sentence that sums it up: “By the end of this century we will have much more control over life than we ever dreamed.” Now imagine a genetically modified rice, with added vitamin and improved surviving ability. That would be great, wouldn’t it? Golden rice is the realization of this imagination, and it already saved a great number of lives. What is more, what if we could do it with other basic food items? I am persuaded that genetic engineering is capable of what the world is not capable of today, and that is significantly reducing the world poverty. While seeing the passenger pigeon in the skies once again would surely be commendable, let us not stray away from the single, most important goal of the genetics (as I envision it) - to save the humanity.
Resurrecting extinct animal species? It’s unnatural to say the least. Isn’t the fact that these species died out evidence enough that when humans meddle into things they are not supposed to, it won’t end well?
ReplyDeleteWhat Ben Novak wants to do is resurrect a specific species of pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius. But what for? For the feeling that humanity is one step closer to ‘playing God’? His argument, apart from the fact that he has been fascinated with extinct birds from an early age, is that the massive amount of feces flocks of these pigeons produced helped sustain other forms of life. And yet, I cannot help but think this ‘rain of feces’ would create vast problems for the inhabitants of eastern North America. Moreover, if such a resurrection would be successful, which, according to the scientists cited in the article, would be very hard to achieve, how probable is that that the species will find its place in the ecosystem? As William Powell argued, its main habitat consisted of the extinct American chestnut. Does that mean that this tree is to be ‘resurrected’ too?
For arguments sake, let us say that the whole resurrection process would be successful, and the passenger pigeon will be on its way to peeling of its ‘extinct/endangered species’ label. But what about the other organisms? The whole food chain and ecosystem will be disrupted by the arrival of a new member. If flocks of these birds would be like biological storms again, then won’t other species suffer, maybe even become endangered as a result of this? And what will that mean for this team of scientists? Will they also be saving those species as well? In the end this would turn into a vicious cycle, and one way or another, someone/something will suffer.
In nature, as everywhere in the world, there needs to be balance. As another species evolves, another dies out because it wasn’t the fittest in terms of survival. It’s the natural cycle of life. Of course, I’m not saying it is okay for human beings to massacre other organisms just because they are the dominant ones. I just believe that we cannot assume that we can do anything just because we are capable of doing it. Resurrecting extinct species would probably only lead to momentary victory (“Yes! We could potentially go look at live dinosaurs locked up in cages at the Zoo!”) and then long-term negative consequences. I think it would be wiser to spend all the money that is being funded into such research in different areas or to keep funding this research but only for informative purposes, not hands-on experimentation.