Thursday, April 4, 2013

De-extinction - TEDTalks


"Extinction is a different kind of death - it is bigger..."


This TEDTalks is all about recreating extinct species and even ecosystems.  Stewart Brand talks about people like Ben Novak, a young scientist pioneering "de-extinction." He is attempting to bring back the Passenger pigeon with the use of ancient DNA found in the bird's toe pad (only one of these birds remain on the earth today).  Why are these mammals disappearing?  What possibilities arise from the employment of "de-extinction?"

In between handfuls of popcorn, consider the following questions:

Could this kind of scientific experiment interrupt the delicate balance of predator and prey?
Do scientists run the risk of compromising an ecosystem by reintroducing weaker species?
Is extinction a bad thing when a species can no longer naturally survive without artificial support?



21 comments:

  1. This is a test and only a test!!! Tried to post twice now unsuccessfully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are some informative articles on the subject of de-extinction in the April issue of National Geographic. I found myself in agreement with some of the points brought up in the article on the return of the Mammoth. I am of the opinion that we should be focusing on the here and now, not what happened in times previous. My initial thought on the subject is that of motive. What are the reasons for our interest in bringing back certain extinct species? Is it to soothe the guilty conscience of some who think the human race is destined to destroy itself? Some species are extinct for a whole host of reasons, and trying to bring them back does no good for our current way of life. On the opposite end of the argument, I do think the science is important and could be beneficial. Let’s not rush into things!
    Steven Huish
    #A01482798
    ASTE-3440-002
    Spring 2013

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to see a living herd of mammoth. That's enough reason for me.

      Delete
  3. I think that de-extincting species will not interrupt the balance of predator and prey. Most of these species they are thinking of bringing back have only been gone for less than 100 years. Most of their environment is still there and bringing them back will be a very slow process starting with only a couple of animals. The term artificial support seems broad. If you say that we are artificially supporting extinct animals by bringing them back did we not also artificially hinder them by killing them off. I don't think this will have a large effect on existing environments as we take care to reintroduce them into their old environments.
    Zach Rittel A00386553
    ASTE-3440-002

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't really know whether or not to agree or disagree with the concept of de-extincting species. I think the fact that we are developing ways to do that is incredible, and shows how we are advancing. However, I think I believe more in the idea of just letting things play out. Don't go out of your way to make certain species go extinct (maybe even take precautions to prevent them from becoming completely extinct) but don't try to revive a species that is already extinct. Just let nature play its course. We do not NEED the existence of the mammoths. I don't really understand the purpose behind reviving the existence of some. However, if it believed that the de-extinction will benefit us all, and will not disrupt the current environments that are around today, I don't believe it will harm anything either.

    Kirsten Goodman A01656357
    ASTE 3440 sec. 002

    ReplyDelete
  5. Though I like the idea of bringing extinct species back to this world, let be honest, with the rapid growth of our population sooner or later we will have to kill and extinct these species, again. I don't particularly think the de-extinction of old species will affect the ecosystem because these species will eventually come to a balance where they will know who is the pray and who is the predator. Along with that, these species will study one another so that they can survive. Also, with de-extinction I know these scientists are trying to make huge improvements in sciences, but like it's questioned on the blogpost, once these species are revived, scientist will have to spend a good amount of time trying to integrate the species into their normal ecosystem. In case of the mammoth, this might be quite difficult. In fact, I believe that if an specie this big was to be revived, chances are that the animal will be used for recreational purposes rather than for integrating it to its homeland.

    Luis Patino
    SEC 002

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alyse Ottoson
    A01421995
    Section 002

    I never realized how controversial de-extinction was before I watched this ted-talks. I thought that's what we were always wanting, and preventing from happening. It never occurred to me that maybe it helped the ecosystem to have certain animals die off, that it was the course of nature. But then again, we are at fault for some of these animals for going extinct, so is it our obligation as man kind to bring them back? Honestly, I see no harm in bringing back pigeons we took out, and like it said near the end, because of this technology, we doubled the number of gorillas, birds, and eventually the white rhino. However, with all that said, I don't see the benefit bringing the mammoth back. Would it even be able to live in our always increasing in temperature? What was their purpose before? I just feel they were extinct for a reason, and it was so long ago, that we need to let them go. They wouldn't be coming back to the same planet, and I only anticipate negative outcomes with their return.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my biology and physical geography courses, we have extensively covered the topic of extinction, and in both classes we have come to the same conclusion--extinction is a natural part of the earth's cycles. We have had six major extinctions since lifeforms popped up on earth, and we are just in the midst of another one. In fact, extinction is an effect of evolution, and it allows new species to evolve and fill niches.

    I don't see a reason why we need to pursue de-extinction. If we stick to the idea that new species will evolve to fill the spaces left by extinct species, can you imagine all the diversity that can be created? We might even see the rise of species that will be more beneficial to our habitats and environments. Who knows!

    Chloe Raphael
    A01672250
    Section 002

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am sure anyone could sway me the other direction, but personally I disagree with bringing back these animals. Society has constantly evolved whether this is for the best or not I don't know, but I feel like it is crutical for us to not mess with this too much. Frankly they died and if they came back they could kill me so I am not really for it.
    Ashlena Nichols
    A01239367

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hate when I'm trying to submit a blog post and when I publish it erases everything. do'h Okay so I don't really care either way on the bringing back of extinct species I just have questions like: Do you know how long it owuld take for a species, brought back through modern science, to be able to take care of it self and become self-sustainable now? We would have to babysit it for decades not to mention it would have a lot of adapting to do to even survive this time around? Why would we try to bring back a species that has been extinct for centuries when there are species like 3 of the 9 subspecies of tigers that have only been extinct for the past 40 years? Populations that only went extinct because of human selfishness. Anyway these are my thoughts on this issue. Would be cool but expense and I don't know that it is sustainable.
    SarahKay
    a01123981
    001

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the idea of bringing back extinct species, even for the best of reasons or intentions could have long lasting consequences that we may not fully understand right now. In a way I feel the same with this as I do with "designer babies", it is a little to close to "playing God" for me to feel comfortable with. Bringing back a species of pigeon is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is using genetics to bring back a species recently extinct or on the verge of extinction either. My concern comes from the fact that once the technology has got to that point, what is stopping the real life version of Jurassic Park, and we all know how that turned out. The earth is constantly changing, and we as humans have a huge role in this change, however if we decide to play the role of bringing back any species that has been long extinct, we could upset the balance and ecology of the Earth even more.

    Ashley Montgomery
    A01669981
    Section 002

    ReplyDelete
  11. Deexstinction can bring back or help out ecosystems that no longer exist, or are in need of a boost. Like the aurocks, how it helped grow meadows in a bland forest, many animals could use that, but the aurocks is no longer there, and so the ecosystem is now suffering. Some may say that we can't play God in bringing species back from the dead, but wasn't it us in the first place that caused many species' extinctions? I am for both ways, thinking that they both have pros and cons to them, but I am all for saving species that are endangered.

    Josh Ramage
    A01195531
    Section 001

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am really on the fence about this topic. On the one hand I think that de-extinction is an exciting and revolutionary new scientific breakthrough that can bring back so many species that humans have wiped out. On the other hand, maybe there is a reason these species are no longer with us. They once played an important role in their environments but have their niches been filled by other animals? Will their re-introduction then affect the species that have replaced them and possible cause them to go extinct?
    I feel like there is so much we do not know about this topic and so much that we can’t know unless by experience. We all watched Jurassic Park, we know the dangers of playing God, and the consequences are completely unknown to us.
    Regardless, I think that de-extinction should be pursued and tested. The benefits could outweigh the negatives. The only way to know is to bring a species back.

    Tyler Livingston
    A01204297
    Section 001

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think we have a responsibility to bring back species that we have eradicated, especially those who were deliberately made extinct from over hunting. I've noticed a few students worried about the balance that reintroducing an previously instinct animal back into an ecosystem. Filling a gap in an ecosystem that hasn't been present in hundreds of years might seem a little stark. However, in the grand scheme of things, hundreds of years equates to a blip in the 4.5 billion year timeline of natural evolution. Sure, the ecosystem might be quite different, but I'm willing to accept that if many species could adapt to humans invasive presence, the would be able to adapt to a new environment.


    Spencer DeVilbiss
    A00584080
    Section 001

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think this concept is really exciting, but it makes me wonder if they aren't just all gunho to do it just to say they did it and not for a real sensable reason. I mean what will happen to the ecosystems that have now healed with the long absents of these extincted animals. I feel bad their gone, but I'm not sure that you can ever truely fix something you destroyed.

    Ben Sandberg
    A01438989
    section 002

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think it would be worth the time to bring some species back. There will be problems with that though. People will want to do things that they shouldn’t which will end up causing problems for everyone, the more accessible this technology is the more people will abuse it. Don’t get me wrong I would love to see a mammoth and other species alive. I would pay good money to see it. But I believe that it would become an impossible thing to control. I think the government needs to strictly regulate it. But whenever the government is involved it causes problems. So in reality I think it would cause more problems then it is worth. It will cost millions to manage it and regulate it. Then in my opinion we would reintroduce a species and the gene pool wouldn’t be big enough to support the species in my opinion, unless you were able to have 6 or 7 different animals of that species to breed. Which would cause a whole another set of problems and end up sucking millions more to keep these species alive. Then to worry about the environmental aspects are in impossible to try to understand. It is a variable that no one can predict. I believe in survival of the fittest. The strongest deserve to live and stay alive.


    Kendell Foster
    001
    a01633424

    ReplyDelete
  16. People are inquisitive, always testing boundaries to see if it's possible to go further. This drive for knowledge is what has contributed to the many great, and the terrible, scientific developments throughout time. I believe that de-extinction is worth pursuing because of its great potential. Imagine everything that could be learned as the process is perfected, not just from the process itself but from the animals and ecosystems that are restored. Are the habits of animals learned or instinct? How would being raised by band-tailed pigeons affect the habits of the passenger pigeon? There is so much we don't understand and de-extinction is yet another way for us to expand our knowledge and understanding. However, like all the scientific developments before it, there is no way for us to know what the consequences of de-extinction will be ahead of time, good or bad. Nevertheless, we cannot let the unknown stunt scientific growth.

    A00770936
    Section 001

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that to even have to technology to bring back a species in incredible. I just don't think it's the best idea. It's not a good to go against the cycles of the earth. I think it goes against the cycle of life and "mother nature." I just don't believe that we will understand all of the consequences to bringing back a species to the earth.

    A01231062
    Section 002
    Paige Buchanan

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't necessarily agree that this is something that should be done. It's like, where do we draw the line? I think it's way cool that the technology to do this is awesome, and the fact that we are making this kind of progress is amazing. I just don't think it's right to mess with the natural occurrence of things. These species are extinct for a reason, and there isn't any real negative effect because of it.

    A01239511
    Section 001
    Taylor Olsen

    ReplyDelete
  19. Like other people have mentioned, I think that the technology is cool and it would be interesting to see some of the species that have been extinct for a long time. However, I don't think that it is the best idea. I know its just a story, but take Jurassic Park. Those dinosaurs were crazy. Not to mention the fact that it would be scary to see dinosaurs and mammoths again, but could they even survive in our world today? Somehow, I think not. These species died out for a reason, and I think that they should stay that way to avoid upsetting the balance of the world.

    Katie Blakeley
    A01111414
    Section 001

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now the definition of technology literacy is much richer and more complex because there is more information available than ever before. And the tools for finding, using and creating information are rapidly becoming more diverse and sophisticated.

    Tamrat
    A00946105
    ASTE-3440-001

    ReplyDelete