Case 8 considers whether scientists should bring back extinct species, which could range from tyrannical T-Rexes to docile dodo birds. The techniques aren’t quite there, but are getting better. Should de-extinction experiments continue, and when a breakthrough inevitably occurs, should there be any limits on whether, in which cases or how de-extinction is used?
Here’s some guest analysis from my 10-year-old son, Justin.
“You should not bring back species from the past. As it states in the passage, ‘Many factors brought about the extinction of a given species, why should we intervene artificially to reverse the procedure?’ If you focused on just bringing them back, then it would cause problems such as throwing off the ecosystem. Also, the bucardo was revived, but only for a few seconds. It then died because of organ failure. So the science isn’t very effective.
I believe that they are just spending many thousands of dollars on trying to bring back extinct species. When you would have to bring back two, and if you were very serious about the bucardo being a thriving species, then you would probably have to set up hundreds of facilities all around of America.
So instead you should save the endangered instead of bringing back the extinct. Comment if you agree or disagree and why.”
Thank you, Justin! It sounds like you’re most concerned about resources being spent on something that may or may not work, which might be better spent saving endangered species before they’re gone.
What are your or your team’s thoughts on this case? To comment, click the article title, scroll down towards the bottom, and submit. Justin appreciates and looks forward to your ideas.