Stewart Brand The Case For De-Extinction Summary

I am writing in response to your request that I analyze Stewart Brand's “The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth” and make a recommendation for or against publication in The Shorthorn. I have considered the rhetorical appeals of Brand’s piece and determined that a large majority of students would find this to be unappealing due to the large amount of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and other religious groups on campus, so therefore, it should not be published. This topic is very controversial and most likely will not persuade the UTA community in agreeing with Brand’'s viewpoints.
Brand claims that due to massive discoveries in the 1980s, “Sequenceable DNA can be recovered from museum specimens and some fossils of extinct species”, and with that “... it might be possible to bring some extinct animals back to life.” This directly goes against many views of many different religions when it comes to mankind and recreating life. That being said, Brand isn't appealing to that large group of students in the UTA community.
Brand starts off his article with stating that one day we may be able to restore long-gone species such as Mammoths and carrier pigeons. He then continues on why he believes
That these creatures can be a sort of entertainment for the generations to come. It it very contradicting to his previous statements of wanting to de-extinct these animals just because it is the right thing to do. Doing so further lowers not only his credentials and how the readers feel about him, but on whether or not humans should be involved with anything genetic if it just leads to “pure thrill” and