Requirements for the paper:
1. Paper must be at least 2,500 words in length.
2. Paper must be in MLA format
.3. Size 12, Times New Roman font, and double spaced.
In â€œThe Case for De-Extinctionâ€, Stewart Brand argues in favor of continuing scientific effortsto revive certain extinct species. In their response (â€œThe Case Against De-Extinctionâ€), Pauland Anne Ehrlich argues that efforts towards de-extinction are misguided. Do you agree withBrand that de-extinction is a worthwhile project, or with the Ehrlichs that de-extinction is amisguided project? Why or why not? A complete response to these questions will include asummary of Brandâ€™s argument in support of de-extinction, a summary of the Ehrlichsâ€™argument against de-extinction, a clear statement of your own opinion regarding the valueofde-extinction efforts, and an explanation of your reasons for preferring Brandâ€™s positionor the Ehrlichsâ€™ position over the alternative.
In your response, be sure to answer all of the following questions:
â— What is de-extinction?
â— According to Brand, how does the motivation behind de-extinction relate to themotivation behind more traditional conservation projects?
â— According to Brand, why should we think that de-extinction would augment moretraditional conservation efforts?
â— According to Brand, how would success in de-extinction transform attitudes towardsnature?
â— According to the Ehrlichs, how is de-extinction a distraction from more worthwhileprojects?
â— According to the Ehrlichs, why is de-extinction a moral hazard? What is a moral hazard?
â— Do you think pursuing de-extinction is a good idea?
â—‹ If you do, why? What do you find unconvincing about the Ehrlichsâ€™ argumentagainst it, and why?
â—‹ If you do not, why? What do you find unconvincing about Brandâ€™s argument, andwhy?
General advice about writing this assignment:
A good paper will combine quotations from the Brand and Ehrlich readings with clear,original statements of the authorâ€™s position in your own words. You may use quotations from thelecture slides in your papers, but you should be sure to explain any quoted material in your ownwords. Remember that your goal in this paper should be twofold:
1) You should display your understanding of Brandâ€™s argument that weshould attempt to de-extinct currently extinct species and the Ehrlichsâ€™argument that we should not attempt to de-extinct currently extinctspecies, and
2) You should articulate why you find Brandâ€™s position or the Ehrlichsâ€™position more convincing and why (including a reason for thinking thatthe argument offered by the side you find less convincing is not persuasive).
Quotations alone will not show your grader that you understand Brandâ€™s position and the Ehrlichsâ€™ position. Make sure that your explanation why either Brandâ€™s or the Ehrlichsâ€™ positionis unconvincing targets a specific part of the relevant position. Your paper should make sense to someone who is not familiar with Brandâ€™s paper and the Ehrlichsâ€™ paper. (Imagine you areexplaining the papers to a friend who is not taking Phil 2: what would you need to say to him orher to make him or her understand?)
The writing should be organized in focused paragraphs with clear, straightforward topic sentences. An introductory paragraph should be brief but sufficiently long to indicate the centralidea(s) that will be developed in the rest of the paper. Care should be taken with grammar and spelling