The Instigator
awilkows
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Scots_167
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we revive extinct species?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 90767
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

awilkows

Pro


My first contention is that with animal extinctions are happening fast, the biggest impact extinct species have on us is the food chain. For example, as sea surface temperatures continue to rise, many species of plankton are beginning to become extinct. If the plankton that is becoming extinct,such as diatoms and krill, go entirely extinct, it would have an large impact on larger creatures like fish and whales, who eat the plankton as a major food source. The fish & whales will have less to eat and their own species begin to starve. This will cause a chain reaction and cut off some of our food sources.


Here’s the reality of how rapid and extensive extinction is occurring - with its potential for devastating effects to humankind. According to a scientific website, “If current rates of extinction continue, the statement warns, we could see the loss of 75 percent of vertebrate species within three centuries.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson and other scientists estimate that half of the current species will be extinct by the year 2100. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. That is 1400 extinct species in one week. This is nearly 1,000 times the natural rate from 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were around. Around 15% of mammal species and 11% of bird species are classified as threatened with extinction. This affects not only the animals, but us as well. Many of these creatures are small and don't seem to have a significant impact on us humans' everyday lives. HOWEVER, because of the web of life, each species has a connection with all the others around it. The extinction of even some of the smallest creatures, such as types of insects and plankton, would have a direct effect on human life. Right now, some synthetic biologists are working to bring extinct species back to life.


Thank you. Please make this debate kind and fun

Scots_167

Con

I accept this challenge, and shall prove why we shouldn't revive extinct animals.
Debate Round No. 1
awilkows

Pro

My first contention is that with animal extinctions are happening fast, the biggest impact extinct species have on us is the food chain. For example, as sea surface temperatures continue to rise, many species of plankton are beginning to become extinct. If the plankton that is becoming extinct,such as diatoms and krill, go entirely extinct, it would have an large impact on larger creatures like fish and whales, who eat the plankton as a major food source. The fish & whales will have less to eat and their own species begin to starve. This will cause a chain reaction and cut off some of our food sources.
Here’s the reality of how rapid and extensive extinction is occurring - with its potential for devastating effects to humankind. According to a scientific website, “If current rates of extinction continue, the statement warns, we could see the loss of 75 percent of vertebrate species within three centuries.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson and other scientists estimate that half of the current species will be extinct by the year 2100. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. That is 1400 extinct species in one week. This is nearly 1,000 times the natural rate from 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were around. Around 15% of mammal species and 11% of bird species are classified as threatened with extinction. This affects not only the animals, but us as well. Many of these creatures are small and don't seem to have a significant impact on us humans' everyday lives. HOWEVER, because of the web of life, each species has a connection with all the others around it. The extinction of even some of the smallest creatures, such as types of insects and plankton, would have a direct effect on human life. Right now, some synthetic biologists are working to bring extinct species back to life.


These are my first few arguments
Scots_167

Con

Again I thank my opponent for making such a challenge, and I hope this shall be a great short debate.

First Contention

Definition -
De-Extinction: the process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct

Today, I find this argument resolved in Con's Favor of why Extinct Animals should stay EXTINCT! While yes sounding like a fun idea, and an idea to help create new food supplies for the masses. Let us think of what effects this could play into this as well. Now usually when we think of extinct we think of the Wolly Mammoth or Dinosaurs, but of coarse there are more then these animals that are extinct. When something goes extinct, it should stay extinct, not for just its well being but for ours, and here is why.
It would be an alien species, now I don't mean like having to be isolated, but I mean like it being an invasive species. Being able to be top on the food chain cause it has no natural predators in that area. Which could cause the destruction of thousands upon millions of animals' and plants' homes, and even us as well. A great example of an invasive species to help me with this is the Fire Ant, originally from South America, and accidentally introduced to the United States. This accidental introduce has made it hard to rid of them, and fight them off, which makes them a pain.
I know this is evidence, but let us look at Jurassic Park and World for an example, what happened there. Man tried playing God, which in the end caused in the destruction of the island, and the killing of hundreds of people. Yes, we can try and control something as dangerous as these things, but in the end as we know, "You can't beat nature, only nature can beat you."
Yes, you can try and stop Nature from harming you, but it always harms something and someone. So how in the end would you try doing something so dangerous, and bring something that went extinct back to life. If it is extinct, leave it extinct!

Questions Towards Opponent -

1. Where is your evidence for the extinction of Plankton?

2. Haven't we learned of Natural Selection and Adaptation? Why wouldn't the Whales and Fish adapt, if whales assumingly used to walk on land?

3. Aren't there other steps besides de-extinction to stop the current rate of extinction? Mainly like the creation of alternate energy sources, and wildlife conservation movements.

4. Is this not immoral to bring back something extinct back to life?


Remember Vote Con, and good luck to my opponent's Rebuttal and My Questions that he answers.
Debate Round No. 2
awilkows

Pro

My second contention is that we should bring extinct species back because scientists and other people would love to discover and learn more about these animals and plants in order to understand the past and future of our society. The best thing about bringing extinct species back would be actually witnessing their existence What exactly did Woolly Mammoth's eat? Or did sabertooth tigers have other prey? Think about seeing a dodo bird living and breathing - think about all we could learn! Imagine also how much that If the animals were properly treated in a simulated, comfortable environment things could work and we can have a great learning experience. De-extinction could seriously help improve genetic engineering technology. We may potentially learn enough about genome manipulation to finally cure cancer or extend the average human's life span into the triple digits. In addition, the current generations would be given the opportunity to experience some of the remarkable creatures that have lived on our earth.

My third contention is that they can restore the environment. Although the earth adapts and adjusts, there is no question that the extinction of the species has a dramatic harmful impact on specific habitats. By bringing back animals and plants that have been extinct, we can equalize these habitats and begin restoring the damage that has occurred with the absence of these animals. Not only would this changes happen, the food chain could be restored to what it used to be. When an animal becomes extinct it affects the food chain. If an animals is de extinct it could sort the food chain back into place. When we bring back extinct species we can preserve biodiversity, restore diminished ecosystems, advance the science needed to prevent further extinctions, and undo some of the harm humans have caused nature.

A few more things to think about are...

Scientific knowledge: De-extinction could offer insights into evolution and natural resources that are currently unavailable to us.

Technological advancement: De-extinction could be a big step forward for genetic engineering.

Environmental benefits: Threatened or damaged ecosystems could be restored with the help of certain now-extinct species.

Justice: If people pushed plant and animals species into extinction, perhaps we owe it to these species to try and bring them back.

Wonder: How cool would it be to see extinct species alive and kicking again?

Scots_167

Con

Scots_167 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by awilkows 1 year ago
awilkows
Hi,
Your questions were....

1. Where is your evidence for the extinction of Plankton?

2. Haven't we learned of Natural Selection and Adaptation? Why wouldn't the Whales and Fish adapt, if whales assumingly used to walk on land?

3. Aren't there other steps besides de-extinction to stop the current rate of extinction? Mainly like the creation of alternate energy sources, and wildlife conservation movements.

4. Is this not immoral to bring back something extinct back to life?

My answers are...
1. My evidence is from national geographic. I am sorry for not saying that in my argument.

2. Much plankton is dying because of the temperature rise. If this continues to happen animals can not adapt due to the rate of the temperature rising. It is too fast.

3. I am aware that there are many other ways, however we have tried many of them already and they are failing. This proposes the best results.

4. It is not immoral because humans are the reasons that most of these species went extinct. Excluding Natural selection. We should still bring back these animals because it is unfair to not give them the chance at life again as well.

Sorry for not answering in my argument! Thank you!
Posted by awilkows 1 year ago
awilkows
My source most of my information and stats are from nationalgeographic.com

Thank You Guys!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.