The concept of 'de-extinction'—bringing extinct species back to life through genetic engineering—has gained significant attention in recent years. Proponents argue that this technology could restore damaged ecosystems, advance scientific knowledge, and even correct past human mistakes. Three main arguments support the push for de-extinction. First, reintroducing keystone species, such as the woolly mammoth, could help restore Arctic grasslands, which would slow permafrost thaw and reduce carbon emissions. Second, de-extinction research drives innovation in genetic tools like CRISPR, which can be applied to conserve endangered species by increasing genetic diversity or engineering disease resistance. Third, the successful revival of iconic species like the passenger pigeon could generate public enthusiasm and funding for broader conservation efforts, creating a 'conservation momentum' that benefits living species. However, these optimistic views overlook practical and ecological complexities. Critics argue that de-extinction is a costly distraction from preserving currently threatened habitats, and that resurrected species may face welfare issues or fail to adapt to modern environments. Despite these concerns, many scientists believe the potential benefits justify further research.
🎧 听力讲座
🎯 模拟考试环境：先点「播放讲座」听完内容，再作答。听力原文默认隐藏。
The lecture challenges the reading's optimistic view on de-extinction. First, while the woolly mammoth might help restore grasslands, the effect is speculative. Modern Arctic ecosystems have changed dramatically; the soil, vegetation, and climate are different. Even if mammoths were reintroduced, their impact on permafrost would be minimal compared to the massive scale of thawing. Resources spent on creating a few mammoths could instead protect existing permafrost by reducing fossil fuel emissions. Second, the claim that de-extinction drives innovation is misleading. Most genetic tools used in conservation, like CRISPR, were developed for medical or agricultural purposes, not for de-extinction. Moreover, the high cost of resurrecting one species—millions of dollars—could fund thousands of conventional conservation projects, such as habitat restoration or anti-poaching patrols, which have proven more effective. Third, public enthusiasm for de-extinction may actually harm conservation. The 'wow factor' of bringing back a charismatic species could divert attention and donations away from less glamorous but critical work, like protecting insects or amphibians. If people believe extinction is reversible, they may become complacent about current threats. In summary, the lecture argues that de-extinction is not only impractical but also ethically and strategically flawed.
📝 写作提示 Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific points made in the reading passage.
