Exercise 5 - Part 1
Read the text and answer the questions below. Choose the best answer (A, B, C or D) which you think fits best according to the text.
The highly controversial concept of bringing extinct animal species back to life, once confined entirely to the realm of imaginative science fiction novels and Hollywood blockbusters, has rapidly approached absolute technological feasibility. Recent breathtaking advancements in synthetic biology, high-fidelity CRISPR gene editing, and somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning have allowed cutting-edge laboratories to begin reconstructing the complex genomic sequences of iconic lost species, such as the long-extinct woolly mammoth and the passenger pigeon. Enthusiastic proponents of de-extinction herald these developments as a monumental, unprecedented triumph of human ingenuity, offering a revolutionary ecological tool to reverse historical biodiversity losses caused by centuries of aggressive human expansion and industrialization. However, beneath the intoxicating, futuristic allure of technological resurrection lies a complex, treacherous web of ecological, ethical, and practical dilemmas that threaten to completely destabilize modern conservation philosophy.
The primary scientific and environmental argument for de-extinction rests firmly on the concept of proactive ecological restoration. Advocates argue that reintroducing certain lost keystone species could revitalize severely degraded ecosystems that have suffered since their disappearance. For instance, resurrecting the woolly mammoth and reintroducing herds to the vast Arctic tundra could, theoretically, help slow global warming. They would achieve this by trampling packed snow layers, exposing the ground to freezing sub-zero air, and ultimately preserving the fragile permafrost from melting. Yet, environmental ethicist Dr. Clara Vance views this ambitious justification with profound, unwavering skepticism. 'Ecosystems are not static museum displays waiting for their missing pieces to be simply returned,' Vance argues fiercely. 'They are dynamic, fluid, and constantly evolving entities. Reintroducing a long-lost species into an environment that has moved on and adapted for thousands of years is a reckless ecological gamble with entirely unpredictable, potentially catastrophic repercussions for current species.'
Furthermore, critics contend that the colossal, multi-million-dollar financial investments required for de-extinction research represent a severe misallocation of scarce global environmental resources. Contemporary conservation biology operates on notoriously tight, critically inadequate budgets, with thousands of extant, highly endangered species facing immediate, permanent extinction due to ongoing habitat destruction, climate change, and poaching. Opponents argue that spending astronomical sums of money to resurrect a single charismatic, photogenic species is an indulgence driven by scientific hubris and corporate vanity rather than pragmatic ecology. They fear that the spectacular promise of biotechnology will cannibalize funding for mundane preservation, diverting vital capital and political goodwill away from protecting the highly vulnerable, unglamorous ecosystems that currently exist and desperately need monitoring.
Beyond the financial and ecological arguments, there is the profound, deeply troubling question of animal welfare and psychology. A resurrected animal would be born into a modern world completely devoid of its natural social structures, maternal guidance, and learned behavioral patterns. For highly social, intelligent species like the passenger pigeon or the woolly mammoth, behavior is not entirely hardwired by genetics; it is transmitted culturally through generations of parental instruction. A mammoth calf gestated in an artificial womb or carried by a surrogate elephant mother would grow up completely isolated from its own kind. It would be an ecological orphan, incapable of navigating its environment, communicating normally, or interacting with conspecifics. This raises the harrowing ethical prospect of creating deeply traumatized, neurotic creatures simply to satisfy human curiosity and scientific pride.
From a complex legal and regulatory standpoint, de-extinction introduces an unprecedented administrative nightmare for international governments. Existing international conservation frameworks, such as the Endangered Species Act or CITES, are designed to protect organisms based on precise geographic origin, historical population numbers, and natural environmental threats. A cloned, genetically modified hybrid organism created inside a corporate laboratory fits into absolutely none of these established legal categories. Regulators would face insurmountable international challenges in determining whether a resurrected animal should be classified as a protected endangered species, a patented corporate commodity owned by biotech firms, or a dangerous invasive threat to existing local wildlife, leading to protracted geopolitical and legal disputes.
Ultimately, the intense de-extinction debate forces humanity to confront the core of its relationship with the natural world. It directly challenges the comfortable, dangerous assumption that technology can seamlessly fix the consequences of environmental destruction without requiring any fundamental change in human consumer behavior or economic systems. If we accept the moral premise that extinction is fully reversible, we risk severely undermining the urgency of preventing extinctions in the first place, creating a dangerous illusion of ecological impunity. Resurrecting the dead may demonstrate our immense technological power, but true ecological wisdom lies in recognizing and respecting the limits of our right to manipulate the biosphere.
31. In the first paragraph, the writer suggests that de-extinction technology
32. Dr. Clara Vance uses the phrase 'museum displays' to imply that ecosystems
33. In the phrase the spectacular promise of biotechnology will cannibalize funding for mundane preservation, the writer means that
34. What animal welfare concern does the writer highlight in the fourth paragraph?
35. According to the fifth paragraph, current international conservation frameworks are inadequate because they
36. In the final paragraph, the writer concludes that accepting de-extinction could