Worst Case Scenario
For this project we had to find controversial science topics and write an essay about it. The other half of this project had us writing a "Worst Case Scenario" story for our topic. The we had to get into groups of 6 or 7 and make it into a production.
Chemistry
We started in Chemistry by finding a controversial topic in science. I chose de-extinction, the process of bringing extinct species back into the world. We used our topics and wrote an essay about it:
Chemistry
We started in Chemistry by finding a controversial topic in science. I chose de-extinction, the process of bringing extinct species back into the world. We used our topics and wrote an essay about it:
CHEMISTRY PERIODS 2-3
MARIAH MELLINGER
DE-EXTINCTION
GOODBYE AND HELLO (AGAIN)
___
By Kenneth Arnold
INTRODUCTIONWith the rapid loss of species we are seeing today, it is estimated that the number of species we’re losing per year is between 2,000 - 20,000 (WWF). Extinction is a natural thing, however, the natural extinction rate is 1 to 5 species a year, which is the number of animals that go extinct without any human influence (CBD). These statistics are alarming because this means that we are losing the same number of animals that we would normally lose in a time span of 2,000-4,000 years, in just one. Action needs to be taken to either reduce this number, or even bring these animals back as soon as possible. There is an organization based out of San Francisco called Revive and Restore. They have been trying to bring extinct species back with a process known as De-Extinction.
Why is De-Extinction Important?The process of De-Extinction is very important in science and biology. With the increasing number of animals becoming extinct each year, it’s important we start developing technology to fight this problem. Since 1970, we’ve lost 52% of the earth’s bird, mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian populations (USA Today). With this alarming rate of loss, it really affects our ecosystem because other species are losing food, or becoming more vulnerable in the wild. By the year 2050, if we continue at this rate, we will lose half of the current species on earth, due to climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, and deforestation. De-extinction works by taking living tissue from an extinct animal and cloning it to make an embryo (Live Science). So it would seem that De-Extinction has the answer to our current extinction problem, but there are setbacks.
What is Wrong With De-Extinction, What Are the Setbacks?Every new solution to a problem, has its setbacks. People who oppose De-Extinction have come up with five main reasons why we shouldn’t bring back extinct species:
3. Environment
De-extinct species would be alien and potentially invasive; their habitats and food sources have changed, which would change their role in these new ecosystems. (Discover Magazine). If we were to bring back old species (i.e Woolly Mammoth) then they might just die out again due to a significant change in their environment and food sources. This could also have a species dominate a specific region and overpopulate.
4. Political
De-extinction may change priorities in other fields of science, such as veterinarian research and the conservation of currently endangered species (Discover Magazine). If we do bring back these animals, scientists might be more focused on improving this technology instead of the current problems we already have in place.
5. Moral
Is de-extinction playing god, or just plain wrong? It may also have unforeseen consequences (Discover Magazine). Should we really try and bring these animals back after they have been wiped off the face of the earth, is bringing back these dead animals just changing their fate?
There are a fair amount of people who oppose De-Extinction. Such as Paul Ehrlich, who said “Spending millions trying to de-extinct a few species will not compensate for the thousands of species lost to human activity.” (e360) Implying that funding and research on De-Extinction is a waste of money and resources. Ehrlich seems to forget that this technology could bring back millions of animals and overcompensate for our efforts. There’s also The Kimmela Center For Animal Advocacy, who says that “De-extinction ignores the current mass extinction problem.” (KCAA) But the extinction problem is one of the reasons we are trying to develop this technology. So with all of these problems and setbacks, why would we want to use De-Extinction to solve our current problems?
Identifying the Problems With De-Extinction Yes, we do have solutions to all of these problems and setbacks. But first I would like to address the pros of De-Extinction, which are solutions to our current problems and the potential problems with De-Extinction.
All of these reasons support the importance of funding and research into de-extinction. When Ehrlich said that we should stop spending millions to research de-extinction (e360), it seems that he did not take into consideration the amount of scientific progress and discovery we would be making. Even if we end up failing to bring back extinct species, imagine how much progress would be made just in that research alone. Also going back to when The Kimmela Center for American Advocacy said that De-Extinction ignores the mass extinction going on right now, they did not take into account that’s one of the major reasons we are investing in the technology so we can bring back species we killed off. For the five problems stated earlier, animal welfare would not really be in danger for they would not be released in the wild anytime soon. As far as our health we can isolate these viruses and contain them. Our environment isn’t going to change necessarily, we can survey areas that would be best for these animals to live in. Finally, for the morality, we killed off the animals, so it would be morally right to bring them back. But these solutions are mostly hypothetical, and so are the problems presented, but that does not mean that they are not possible. In my opinion, the pros do outweigh the cons.
Additional Discoveries With De-Extinction With de-extinction, there is a possibility for more discoveries that could be made. Specifically being able to rewrite DNA of humans and animals, and artificially breed animals in a laboratory. In the future, if de-extinction technology is researched more, we could see more animals wandering around and create better eco systems for these animals. Our scientific research, specifically biology, would benefit from the extensive research that would be conducted while looking into these animals more. So what can be taken away from understanding de-extinction?
What Can We Take Away From De-Extinction In my opinion, de-extinction is very important and we need to research into it more, because the pros of de-extinction heavily weigh out the cons. There are so many benefits to advancements in science and our environment, that we would lose if we were to stop investing time and money into de-extinction. As beneficial as de-extinction is, there are still problems that we would need to overcome, such as how long it would take and how expensive it would be. But the more we develop it, the more cost effective we can make it. Now you can make a formal opinion on why de-extinction should be researched and developed more.
Sources:Deutsch, L., & Gelles, K. (2015, June 26). 6th Mass Extinction? Jarring Stats on Wildlife Today. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (USA Today)
Draxler, B. (2013, April 4). 5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To). Retrieved September 27, 2015. (Discover Magazine)
Ehrlich, P. (2014, January 13). The Case Against De-Extinction: It’s a Fascinating but Dumb Idea. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (e360)
How Many Species Are We Losing. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/ (WWF)
Four Reasons Why We Should Oppose ‘De-Extinction’. (2013, April 4). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.kimmela.org/2013/04/04/four-reasons-why-we-should-oppose-de-extinction/
Lewis, T. (2013, August 19). Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals Back to Life. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (Livescience)
The Extinction Crisis. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/ (CBD)
MARIAH MELLINGER
DE-EXTINCTION
GOODBYE AND HELLO (AGAIN)
___
By Kenneth Arnold
INTRODUCTIONWith the rapid loss of species we are seeing today, it is estimated that the number of species we’re losing per year is between 2,000 - 20,000 (WWF). Extinction is a natural thing, however, the natural extinction rate is 1 to 5 species a year, which is the number of animals that go extinct without any human influence (CBD). These statistics are alarming because this means that we are losing the same number of animals that we would normally lose in a time span of 2,000-4,000 years, in just one. Action needs to be taken to either reduce this number, or even bring these animals back as soon as possible. There is an organization based out of San Francisco called Revive and Restore. They have been trying to bring extinct species back with a process known as De-Extinction.
Why is De-Extinction Important?The process of De-Extinction is very important in science and biology. With the increasing number of animals becoming extinct each year, it’s important we start developing technology to fight this problem. Since 1970, we’ve lost 52% of the earth’s bird, mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian populations (USA Today). With this alarming rate of loss, it really affects our ecosystem because other species are losing food, or becoming more vulnerable in the wild. By the year 2050, if we continue at this rate, we will lose half of the current species on earth, due to climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, and deforestation. De-extinction works by taking living tissue from an extinct animal and cloning it to make an embryo (Live Science). So it would seem that De-Extinction has the answer to our current extinction problem, but there are setbacks.
What is Wrong With De-Extinction, What Are the Setbacks?Every new solution to a problem, has its setbacks. People who oppose De-Extinction have come up with five main reasons why we shouldn’t bring back extinct species:
- Animal Welfare
- Health
3. Environment
De-extinct species would be alien and potentially invasive; their habitats and food sources have changed, which would change their role in these new ecosystems. (Discover Magazine). If we were to bring back old species (i.e Woolly Mammoth) then they might just die out again due to a significant change in their environment and food sources. This could also have a species dominate a specific region and overpopulate.
4. Political
De-extinction may change priorities in other fields of science, such as veterinarian research and the conservation of currently endangered species (Discover Magazine). If we do bring back these animals, scientists might be more focused on improving this technology instead of the current problems we already have in place.
5. Moral
Is de-extinction playing god, or just plain wrong? It may also have unforeseen consequences (Discover Magazine). Should we really try and bring these animals back after they have been wiped off the face of the earth, is bringing back these dead animals just changing their fate?
There are a fair amount of people who oppose De-Extinction. Such as Paul Ehrlich, who said “Spending millions trying to de-extinct a few species will not compensate for the thousands of species lost to human activity.” (e360) Implying that funding and research on De-Extinction is a waste of money and resources. Ehrlich seems to forget that this technology could bring back millions of animals and overcompensate for our efforts. There’s also The Kimmela Center For Animal Advocacy, who says that “De-extinction ignores the current mass extinction problem.” (KCAA) But the extinction problem is one of the reasons we are trying to develop this technology. So with all of these problems and setbacks, why would we want to use De-Extinction to solve our current problems?
Identifying the Problems With De-Extinction Yes, we do have solutions to all of these problems and setbacks. But first I would like to address the pros of De-Extinction, which are solutions to our current problems and the potential problems with De-Extinction.
- Scientific Knowledge
- Technological Advancement.
- Environmental Benefits
- Responsibility
- Wonder
All of these reasons support the importance of funding and research into de-extinction. When Ehrlich said that we should stop spending millions to research de-extinction (e360), it seems that he did not take into consideration the amount of scientific progress and discovery we would be making. Even if we end up failing to bring back extinct species, imagine how much progress would be made just in that research alone. Also going back to when The Kimmela Center for American Advocacy said that De-Extinction ignores the mass extinction going on right now, they did not take into account that’s one of the major reasons we are investing in the technology so we can bring back species we killed off. For the five problems stated earlier, animal welfare would not really be in danger for they would not be released in the wild anytime soon. As far as our health we can isolate these viruses and contain them. Our environment isn’t going to change necessarily, we can survey areas that would be best for these animals to live in. Finally, for the morality, we killed off the animals, so it would be morally right to bring them back. But these solutions are mostly hypothetical, and so are the problems presented, but that does not mean that they are not possible. In my opinion, the pros do outweigh the cons.
Additional Discoveries With De-Extinction With de-extinction, there is a possibility for more discoveries that could be made. Specifically being able to rewrite DNA of humans and animals, and artificially breed animals in a laboratory. In the future, if de-extinction technology is researched more, we could see more animals wandering around and create better eco systems for these animals. Our scientific research, specifically biology, would benefit from the extensive research that would be conducted while looking into these animals more. So what can be taken away from understanding de-extinction?
What Can We Take Away From De-Extinction In my opinion, de-extinction is very important and we need to research into it more, because the pros of de-extinction heavily weigh out the cons. There are so many benefits to advancements in science and our environment, that we would lose if we were to stop investing time and money into de-extinction. As beneficial as de-extinction is, there are still problems that we would need to overcome, such as how long it would take and how expensive it would be. But the more we develop it, the more cost effective we can make it. Now you can make a formal opinion on why de-extinction should be researched and developed more.
Sources:Deutsch, L., & Gelles, K. (2015, June 26). 6th Mass Extinction? Jarring Stats on Wildlife Today. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (USA Today)
Draxler, B. (2013, April 4). 5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To). Retrieved September 27, 2015. (Discover Magazine)
Ehrlich, P. (2014, January 13). The Case Against De-Extinction: It’s a Fascinating but Dumb Idea. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (e360)
How Many Species Are We Losing. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/ (WWF)
Four Reasons Why We Should Oppose ‘De-Extinction’. (2013, April 4). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.kimmela.org/2013/04/04/four-reasons-why-we-should-oppose-de-extinction/
Lewis, T. (2013, August 19). Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals Back to Life. Retrieved September 27, 2015. (Livescience)
The Extinction Crisis. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/ (CBD)
Humanities:
In humanities we had to write fictional stories about the worst case scenario that these sciences could produce. My story was about bringing back an extinct species and having them take over the world.
In humanities we had to write fictional stories about the worst case scenario that these sciences could produce. My story was about bringing back an extinct species and having them take over the world.
The Production:
We got into groups of 8 and had to choose one story to make into a full production. We chose a story and made it into a video.
We got into groups of 8 and had to choose one story to make into a full production. We chose a story and made it into a video.
Reflection:
I learned more about video editing and making movies. I also got better with working in big groups.
I learned more about video editing and making movies. I also got better with working in big groups.