We accept

Cloning ON THE Woolly Mammoth Beliefs Essay

When the 1993 movie Jurassic Recreation area came to life on the big screen; which was about scientists taking back extinct dinosaurs, people where very intrigued with the theory. It had been a great theory for a movie, but appeared totally out there and unrealistic. Well evidently the makers of the movie weren't far off with the idea of delivering back extinct family pets.

Today a team of scientists from Japan, Russia and the United States are determined that they would like to clone a wooly mammoth, symbolic of Earth's glaciers age that ended 12, 000 years ago. The analysts say they desire to produce a baby mammoth next six years. To do this the researchers say that they can extract DNA from a mammoth's carcass that is maintained in a Russian laboratory and add it into the egg cells of African elephant hoping of producing a mammoth embryo (Lendon 1).

Dr. Douglas E. Chandler of the Arizona State University College of Life Sciences believes that if an elephant egg were used "the offspring wouldn't normally be considered a mammoth but a crossbreed between an elephant and a mammoth. If one wished a genuine mammoth one would have to find a source of feasible mammoth (eggs) to fertilize and implant which is a much dicier proposition. " Dr. Peter Mazur, a biologist at the University or college of Tennessee who spent some time working with freezing eggs and sperm is convinced the probabilities that iced sperm from mammoths could be used to fertilize a related kinds is near zero (Schmid 1-2).

I believe that the cloning of extinct pets is incorrect. For something to be cloned it should have a particular purpose that could better society as a whole. Also every pet, individual or nonhuman, has sentience; which is the capability to experience pleasure and pain. By researchers cloning the woolly mammoth it could not better culture as a whole at all, and the African elephant has sentience; which by the scientists positioning a woolly mammoth into her it could cause some issues that could cause her serious pain. Also by causing a woolly mammoth today you will be causing it injury. This could happen since it would not be familiar with today's climate, food, environment, etc. By scientists cloning the woolly mammoth it might cause pain to both the woolly mammoth and the African elephant. Also by the scientist accomplishing this it isn't bettering society at all so therefore I really believe the cloning of the woolly mammoth would be incorrect.

I begins with my first premise; that is ideal for something to be cloned it should have a particular purpose that could better society all together. This is predicated on J. S. Mill's Utilitarian Greatest Delight Rule, which says that "we should always produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the best number afflicted or we ought to alleviate the best amount of pain for the best number affected" (Rachels and Rachels).

The scientists that want to be, let's say god, are not thinking of the results that such an experiment would have. By combining kinds that aren't meant to be combined, in this case a wooly mammoth with an African elephant, we're able to cause serious damage which could easily be prevented. There were reasons why the wooly mammoth travelled extinct those 12, 000yrs before. Just because experts want to simulate what happened those a large number of years ago will not give them the to play "GOD" in particular when they may sacrifice the energetic hood of African Elephant. Why do we have to simulate what took place to the wooly mammoth anyway? Are we going to get this done with every kinds that is extinct? Where do we draw the series? If we recreate extinct species we could be messing with the meals string. When an pet animal becomes extinct another creature fills its place. By us having back a varieties that's spot was already filled we're able to significantly be messing with just how our ecosystem, food string, and environment operates. In my own opinion this might not be bettering world or producing joy or alleviating pain for any one individuals or non-human being. So there for we ought to not allow this occurrence to happen. It is merely not right!

My second idea is that every pet animal has sentience that needs to be accounted for. This idea can be related to Jeremy Bentham utilitarian discussion that "whether an animal is human being or nonhuman is merely as irrelevant as whether she actually is dark or white. " On utilitarian grounds "what counts is not whether an dog has a heart, is logical, or any of the rest. All that counts is whether it can experience contentment and unhappiness. If an pet can put up with, then we have a duty to use that into account when deciding what to do" (Rachels and Rachels 105).

The last line of Bentham's quote amounts it up well. If an pet can undergo, then we've a "duty" to consider that into account when deciding what to do. So let's understand this through the eye of the African elephant that may get impregnated with a mammoth. This may cause potential problems for both the elephant and the mammoth cross. Mammoths were made to be transported by their mammoth mom not by an African elephant. Yes both of these species are meticulously related, but that doesn't imply that the African elephant is capable of having or even caring for a mammoth crossbreed. For just one, mammoths were much larger than the elephants of today. In addition they possessed different diets, lived in different environments, and could have even cared for their young in several ways. So could it be right for the scientist to place that much pressure on the African elephant's body, I don't consider so. It also isn't to bring a living thing into a global where it could possibly not have the ability to endure. Woolly mammoths were made to walk the earth thousands of years ago when there were different foods, conditions, and ways of surviving. If indeed they were to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction it might cause much more pain than contentment for everybody that is engaged. So therefor I really believe in what Bentham said "If an pet can go through, then we've a duty to adopt that into account when deciding how to proceed. " I assume that the scientists should not be allowed to bring back the woolly mammoth or any extinct creature for example.

In conclusion I hope I have shed some light on the reasons why the woolly mammoth shouldn't be resurrected. I believe the cloning of extinct animals is wrong. For something to be cloned it will have a specific purpose that could better society as a whole. Also all pets or animals real human or nonhuman have sentience that needs to be accounted for. Getting back the woolly mammoth would cause a much greater amount of unhappiness than enjoyment for everyone involved; the African elephant and the mammoth cross types in particular. But it really may possibly also cause unhappiness to the ecosystem, food chain, and a great many other aspects of life. THEREFORE I ask you, could it be well worth cloning a woolly mammoth just to see how it "may" have perished 12, 000yrs before? I believe the response to this question is not a! We ought to not allow these scientists to go through with this experiment; it is not bettering modern culture in anyway, it could harm all the family pets involved, and could even effect the way the environment, food chain, and world operates.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment