De-extinction is the process of bringing back a species that has been permanently removed, or extinct. Today’s budding technology has brought about the question of whether or not it will be possible to “resurrect” species that once inhabited the earth. Some may argue that bringing back these species will expand the present day technology. Extinct species should not be brought back, due to the expenses, the need for conservation, and the lack of habitats for the species to be placed. As technology becomes advanced and immense, so does the price. To bring back a species would cost billions of dollars in expenses. Ehrlich reveals, “Spending millions of dollars trying to de-extinct a few species will not compensate for the thousands of populations and species that have been lost…” (Text 4, line 5-7). Thousands of species were lost as a result of human activities. It wouldn’t make logical sense to society to spent millions of dollars, only to bring back a few species. Some scientists hold that the newest biotechnology can be “…expensive when it’s first developed…” (Text 2, line 42-43). New technology will be extremely costly. Do the billions of dollars make up for the few species that will be brought back? The mountainous expenses greatly discourage the idea of de-extinction. The human race has caused multiple species to go into extinction. …show more content…
Herring argues, “It would be an incredible scientific advancement” (Text 1, line 18). Being able to bring back a species would make the possibilities of science endless, and bring abundant benefits to society. However, the lengthy process of de-extinction holds countless negative factors. Ehrlich asserts, “de-extinction thus seems far-fetched …extremely unlikely to succeed” (Text 4, line 22-23). Although science will grow leaps and bounds, there are several factors that make de-extinction unlikely to