Passage A
The prospect of de-extinction—using genetic technologies to resurrect species lost to human history—is often framed as a hubristic attempt to play God. However, this view overlooks our ethical responsibility to mend the ecological webs we have severed. When humanity drove the passenger pigeon or the woolly mammoth to extinction, we did not merely erase a single lineage; we dismantled keystone interactions that maintained the health of entire ecosystems. The regeneration of these species is not a luxury or a curiosity; it is a systematic ecological repair. By introducing genetically recovered proxies of extinct ecosystem engineers, we can restore the lost functions of grazing, seed dispersal, and nutrient cycling that modern conservation strategies, which focus solely on preservation, cannot replicate. While de-extinction must proceed with rigorous, localized environmental testing, dismissing it outright is a failure of ecological imagination. We must view de-extinction not as a replacement for current conservation efforts, but as an indispensable, forward-looking tool in our restoration toolkit.
Passage B
While the concept of cloning mammoths or passenger pigeons makes for captivating headlines, the de-extinction movement is a dangerous diversion from the critical work of biodiversity conservation. The premise that we can simply 'drop' a resurrected species back into its historical niche ignores the reality of anthropocentric change. The habitats these animals once occupied have been irrevocably altered by climate change, urbanization, and invasive species; a cloned species would find itself an ecological mismatch. More concerning, however, is the financial and political cost. Conservation is fundamentally a zero-sum game, dependent on limited public funding and political will. Allocating tens of millions of dollars to high-tech, corporate-backed de-extinction projects inevitably starves underfunded initiatives aimed at protecting existing, critically endangered species and their habitats. De-extinction offers a seductive fantasy—a technological band-aid that absolves humanity of the difficult, systemic work required to stop ongoing extinctions. It is far more prudent to save the species currently on the brink than to chase the specters of the past.
Which of the following statements best describes a major difference in how the authors of Passage A and Passage B view the role of de-extinction in environmental conservation?
- The author of Passage A views de-extinction as an ethically necessary advancement that can actively repair damaged ecosystems, while the author of Passage B views it as an appealing but misguided diversion of resources from immediate conservation needs.Cevap
- BThe author of Passage A argues that de-extinction should replace traditional conservation methods, while the author of Passage B maintains that cloning is biologically impossible due to human-induced climate change.
- CThe author of Passage A exhibits a cautious optimism focused on long-term ecological balance, while the author of Passage B displays absolute opposition to any technological management of natural habitats.
- DBoth authors agree that resurrecting extinct species is inevitable but disagree on whether public funds or corporate sponsorships should finance the research.