This article was written by Laura Geggel, a senior writer for LiveScience.org. The article summarizes a recent debate between some of the country’s top scientists. The debate was moderated by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. The debate was over the subject of “de-extinction.” Specifically, should humans be brought back after they have gone extinct. The article discusses certain scenarios such as an alien civilization coming to Earth and reviving humans. However, in this scenario, the scientists, somewhat unanimously, opt for no de-extinction as humans would likely be kept in zoo-like habitats.
The article itself is a string of anecdotes from the debate. It synthesizes soundbites and quotes into a concise yet continuous summary of the dialogue from the debate. It switches between pro de-extinction and anti-de-extinction perspectives and opinions from the participating scientists. It groups the opinions and quotes into ethical concerns and lawful concerns. Such an example is “Yes, we do, said panelist George Church, a professor at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is working on reviving bits and pieces of the woolly mammoth. But then again, Church, a geneticist, molecular engineer and chemist, has often opined that the science of de-extinction is already here or within reach, and should be pursued.”
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the article was its failure to address what, to me, was the first question to enter my mind, “How can we revive ourselves if we are all dead?” The article does mention a few plausible scenarios (such as the alien revival I mentioned earlier) but it seems that the soundbites and quotes are addressing other situations. An explanation was needed but never provided. Otherwise, the organization of the essay was perfect. It balanced the perspectives given and grouped them into different concerns. Hopefully we will never have to come to de-extinction but it’s nice to know we have a good understanding if we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment