In “The Case for De-Extinction”, Stewart Brand argues in favor of continuing scientific effortsto revive certain extinct species. In their response (“The Case Against De-Extinction”), Pauland
The post “The Case for De-Extinction”, first appeared on COMPLIANT PAPERS.
In “The Case for De-Extinction”, Stewart Brand argues in favor of continuing scientific effortsto revive certain extinct species. In their response (“The Case Against De-Extinction”), Pauland Anne Ehrlich argues that efforts towards de-extinction are misguided. Do you agree withBrand that de-extinction is a worthwhile project, or with the Ehrlichs that de-extinction is amisguided project? Why or why not? A complete response to these questions will include asummary of Brand’s argument in support of de-extinction, a summary of the Ehrlichs’argument against de-extinction, a clear statement of your own opinion regarding the valueofde-extinction efforts, and an explanation of your reasons for preferring Brand’s positionor the Ehrlichs’ position over the alternative.
In your response, be sure to answer all of the following questions:
● What is de-extinction?
● According to Brand, how does the motivation behind de-extinction relate to themotivation behind more traditional conservation projects?
● According to Brand, why should we think that de-extinction would augment moretraditional conservation efforts?
● According to Brand, how would success in de-extinction transform attitudes towardsnature?
● According to the Ehrlichs, how is de-extinction a distraction from more worthwhileprojects?
● According to the Ehrlichs, why is de-extinction a moral hazard? What is a moral hazard?
● Do you think pursuing de-extinction is a good idea?
○ If you do, why? What do you find unconvincing about the Ehrlichs’ argumentagainst it, and why?
○ If you do not, why? What do you find unconvincing about Brand’s argument, andwhy?
The post “The Case for De-Extinction”, first appeared on COMPLIANT PAPERS.
