Popular in Music Appreciation
Popular in Department
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Bundle was uploaded by Kumar Jyoti on Tuesday December 29, 2015. The Bundle belongs to Music 1300 at University of Texas at Arlington taught by Dr. Scott Pool in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 36 views.
Reviews for English 1301
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 12/29/15
Haisam Mubarik ENG 1301003 14 November 2015 Bringing our Beloved Animals Back to Life Deextinction is a word that brings hope to many, and brings pain to others. It is such a controversial topic. Deextinction is bringing extinct animals, like the wooly mammoth, back to life. Does the dangers of this outweigh the benefits? Is this even possible? The topic has been debated for years. Humans should definitely focus on reviving extinct species because a great number of those animals do not have a modern equal, deextinction would further the ability of science (maybe even making it useful to furthering human life), and the revival would enhance biodiversity. Firstly, UTA’s community is very diverse therefore arguments will have a variety of dimensions. Appealing to the majority of the student body of UTA is not an easy talk, as there are people from all over the world – and at comparable percentages. Most people at this university will understand logical and thoughtful claims because it helps them in pursuing a further education. The first article of the Jurassic play essay cluster is “The Case for De extinction.” It mentions how the method of deextinction is possible. Stewart Brand, the author, says “All you might need is to patch into the living genome of the extinct animal’s closest living relative. For the passenger pigeon, it would be the bandtailed pigeon; for the woolly mammoth, the Asian elephant” (Brand) to recreate organisms. Brand is highly knowledgeable about the science behind it all, and he is a strong supporter of restoring the extinct wildlife. He is evidently on board because he created a nonprofit organization called Revive and Restore in order to research the effects. Agreeing with him are those who want to see a bright future with expanded scientific possibilities. My primary point supporting deextinction reflects on the fact that mammoths and saber tooth tigers, among others, were and are (or still can be) extremely unique. These species have evolved into multiple nextgeneration species that are individually weaker than their ancestors. Ultimately, sabertooths were the greatest killing machines. Now, we have lions, tigers and leopards – all of which are not as physically or mentally dominant as their previous version. Also, the only factor that killed ancient animals was the ice Age – this cannot properly be prepared for so the death of those animals did not test their adaptability. In “The Case for De extinction,” Brand explains how the mammoth can currently be useful in reducing the consequences of global warming – something today’s beasts cannot do” When the herds of northern megaherbivores were killed off by humans ten millennia ago, Zimov says, the largest biome on earth, called the "mammoth steppe," converted from grassland to boreal forest and tundra. In these days of global warming, thawing tundra is releasing greenhouse gases, whereas grassland fixes carbon. Zimov is currently restoring grassland in the far north with muskoxes, wisents, and Yakutian horses. He is waiting patiently for mammoths” (Brand). The second article in Jurassic Play is the exact opposite of the first. “The Case against Deextinction” attempts to diffuse the idea of reuniting lost species back with Earth. The writer, Ehrlich, creates a thesis that claims “It would take resources away from saving endangered species and their habitats and would divert us from the critical work needed to protect the planet.” Ehrlich makes a valid point. How will we able to bring species back and take care of them if we cannot adequately care for our current populations? Fortunately, Brand anticipates this counterattack and says that the revival of passenger pigeons and others would enhance biodiversity and increase the availability of resources. The food chain would increase and become even more diversified. This directly backs up my third reason. Next, the Jurassic discussion takes a turn toward cloning. As expected, “Six reasons we are no Longer Cloning Dogs” mentions the moral issues and other problems with genetic mutation. The article discovers the unsatisfactory financial performance of cloning. Due to cloning having a small market and little buyers and donators, the operations are too expensive. They are far from costeffective. Another point is the unethical black market competition. It is obviously next to impossible for the government to regulate all sales. Underground networks will be promoted because of the possibilities. If nobody is there to stop certain motivated individuals (mad scientists), who knows how far they are willing to go? The author, Lou Hawthorne, does not fail to describe the inconsistent results of mutation. Technology is not onehundred percent perfect so devastating deviations in findings still occur, causing more polarization against the idea. Deextinction and cloning are very similar in the sense that both can form new material out of the old. In order to allow deextinction to help humans, restrictions on the program need to decrease. My second reason argues that bringing animals back can assist everyday people. Back when technology was hard to access, birds were a great tool. Passenger pigeons used to deliver messages all across the globe. Some species can still be trained to do that, in an inexpensive and fun way. Utilizing the animals’ gifted abilities reduces the dependency of phones and other devices that can be manipulated or fail. My previous instance of Brand describing how the mammoth can help reduce the effects of climate change should do justice to this claim. The fourth article in the cluster, “The Cloning Scandal of Hwang WooSuk,” goes into detail the possible moral issues with cloning. It narrates the infamous story of a oncerespected South Korean scientist who bribed mom’s for their eggs to do research. Not only was this ‘underthe table’ procedure illegal, it was also unjust in that these moms would not be comfortable with handing over their eggs. Events like WooSuk’s emphasize the negatives of cloning. People fear deextinction because they do not understand the safety precautions associated with it. If the idea was supported by lawmakers, strict guidelines would definitely be in place to ensure that nobody is harmed. My final reason is supporting Brand is the increase of diversity on our beautiful planet. Would you, the readers of The Shorthorn, the students and staff of UTA, not want to see a reallife mammoth in your life? I hate the chance that my kids may not ever experience the frightening sight and roar of a black panther. These endangered animals will once go away but now, since we can possibly bring them back, why not try? Wild animals from the Ice Age and other time periods would easily contribute to today’s environment. They would bring spectacular abilities and everchanging needs – needs that can affect the food web. The last article “100 Babies in a Year Will have Three Parents” is about genetic mutation, and partly, cloning. Many sad mothers and fathers lose their children before they are born, or a few hours after birth. This can cause depression in many families. Scientists have proposed a viable solution. This calls for one man and two females to develop one baby. Women with great health are needed (one for every procedure). With this, women with poor health can have healthy babies! After all, everyone deserves to live, right? This highlights prolife but keeps prochoice ethical because healthy babies will be increasingly abundant. In conclusion, readers of The Shorthorn should find the future of scientific advances interesting, as it will affect them. Deextinction should be supported as it will increase biodiversity, it will allow ancient animals to assist mankind and it will call for animals with unique abilities. Works Cited Woollaston, Victoria. “100 Babies a year in the UK will have three parents.”
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'