For the passage below, do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, offer what you believe to be the best objection to the argument. This objection could be to any premise of the Principle Justification or Principle Application portion of the argument. Clearly identify which premise you are engaging: "Premise 1 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument is false because . . ." or "Premise 2 of the Principle Application Sub-argument is false because . . . "
-Third, briefly explain how you believe the discussion should continue. What do you think is the author's best reply to the objection you have just raised?
The passage:
The resurrection of dinosaurs, as portrayed in Jurassic Park, is a fantasy. But we are in the early stages of developing the technology that would allow us to resurrect more recently extinct species, whose tissues or DNA we have well-preserved samples of. Extinct species that are candidates for resurrection include the woolly mammoth (whose tissues have been found preserved in permafrost) and the passenger pigeon (whose tissues have been preserved in museums). Many less famous species, from frogs to goats, are candidates for future de-extinction.
The ethics of de-extinction has split the environmentalist community. Should those who believe that humans have a duty to protect and preserve the environment support or oppose de-extinction projects?
I am convinced that environmentalists should support de-extinction projects-or, rather, support at least some of them.
To begin, let us consider some interventions that environmentalists broadly accept as morally good.
First, consider the re-introduction of the gray wolf to Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone's wolf population was hunted to (local) extinction in the 1920s. In 1995, conservationists introduced a breeding population of gray wolves transported from Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada. The effect on Yellowstone Park has been incredible. The wolves control the elk population, which has allowed a huge increase in biodiversity, to the extent that the return of erosion-resisting native plants has altered the flow of rivers. Not everyone is happy- many ranchers and others who live near the park display the same fear and loathing of wolves that prompted their eradication in the 1920s. Despite these complaints, environmentalists broadly consider the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone among the movement's noblest triumphs.
Second, consider the captive breeding programs that saved the California condor from extinction. In the early 1980s, only 23 California condors were known to exist. They were all placed in a captive breeding program, with the goal of stabilizing their numbers and eventually re-introducing wild populations. The program continues, but has been successful thus far. Though the California condor is still critically endangered, hundreds have been introduced to the wild and are breeding there. This program required confining birds, and breeding them in captivity in a way that is starkly different from their natural breeding practices. But environmentalists broadly agree that pulling the bird back from the brink of extinction was the right thing to do.
Finally, consider the protections extended to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This tract of land is critical habitat for many species, including polar bears, Porcupine caribou, and Dall sheep.
Environmentalists have fought for years to protect this refuge from oil companies who would drill there. Environmentalists certainly accept that companies could make a tidy profit extracting oil from the refuge. They believe that protecting the refuge is the right thing to do, even if it costs an oil company an opportunity for additional profit.
What do these three causes have in common that makes them all paradigm cases of morally worthy conservation efforts?
It isn't that everyone wants them- ranchers didn't want the wolves. It isn't that they are about stepping back and letting nature have the space to take its course- the captive breeding program for the condors was quite invasive. It isn't that they foster profit- protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling does not.
Triumphs of environmentalism aren't always profitable, or politically popular, or convenient for humans, or even lovely to humans. What makes something a triumph of environmentalism-an environmental goal morally worth pursuing-is that it secures or promotes biodiversity. That is the feature these paradigm cases have in common. They are all good because they secured or promoted biodiversity.
Whatever else might be said about the technologies that allow us to pursue de-extinction, this much is clear: to de-extinct a species (and subsequently to restore a breeding population to the wild) promotes biodiversity. Environmentalists should embrace de-extinction efforts for that reason.

Question

For the passage below, do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, offer what you believe to be the best objection to the argument. This objection could be to any premise of the Principle Justification or Principle Application portion of the argument. Clearly identify which premise you are engaging: "Premise 1 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument is false because . . ." or "Premise 2 of the Principle Application Sub-argument is false because . . . "
-Third, briefly explain how you believe the discussion should continue. What do you think is the author's best reply to the objection you have just raised?
The passage:
The resurrection of dinosaurs, as portrayed in Jurassic Park, is a fantasy. But we are in the early stages of developing the technology that would allow us to resurrect more recently extinct species, whose tissues or DNA we have well-preserved samples of. Extinct species that are candidates for resurrection include the woolly mammoth (whose tissues have been found preserved in permafrost) and the passenger pigeon (whose tissues have been preserved in museums). Many less famous species, from frogs to goats, are candidates for future de-extinction.
The ethics of de-extinction has split the environmentalist community. Should those who believe that humans have a duty to protect and preserve the environment support or oppose de-extinction projects?
 I am convinced that environmentalists should support de-extinction projects-or, rather, support at least some of them.
To begin, let us consider some interventions that environmentalists broadly accept as morally good.
First, consider the re-introduction of the gray wolf to Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone's wolf population was hunted to (local) extinction in the 1920s. In 1995, conservationists introduced a breeding population of gray wolves transported from Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada. The effect on Yellowstone Park has been incredible. The wolves control the elk population, which has allowed a huge increase in biodiversity, to the extent that the return of erosion-resisting native plants has altered the flow of rivers. Not everyone is happy- many ranchers and others who live near the park display the same fear and loathing of wolves that prompted their eradication in the 1920s. Despite these complaints, environmentalists broadly consider the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone among the movement's noblest triumphs.
Second, consider the captive breeding programs that saved the California condor from extinction. In the early 1980s, only 23 California condors were known to exist. They were all placed in a captive breeding program, with the goal of stabilizing their numbers and eventually re-introducing wild populations. The program continues, but has been successful thus far. Though the California condor is still critically endangered, hundreds have been introduced to the wild and are breeding there. This program required confining birds, and breeding them in captivity in a way that is starkly different from their natural breeding practices. But environmentalists broadly agree that pulling the bird back from the brink of extinction was the right thing to do.
Finally, consider the protections extended to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This tract of land is critical habitat for many species, including polar bears, Porcupine caribou, and Dall sheep.
Environmentalists have fought for years to protect this refuge from oil companies who would drill there. Environmentalists certainly accept that companies could make a tidy profit extracting oil from the refuge. They believe that protecting the refuge is the right thing to do, even if it costs an oil company an opportunity for additional profit.
What do these three causes have in common that makes them all paradigm cases of morally worthy conservation efforts?
 It isn't that everyone wants them- ranchers didn't want the wolves. It isn't that they are about stepping back and letting nature have the space to take its course- the captive breeding program for the condors was quite invasive. It isn't that they foster profit- protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling does not.
Triumphs of environmentalism aren't always profitable, or politically popular, or convenient for humans, or even lovely to humans. What makes something a triumph of environmentalism-an environmental goal morally worth pursuing-is that it secures or promotes biodiversity. That is the feature these paradigm cases have in common. They are all good because they secured or promoted biodiversity.
Whatever else might be said about the technologies that allow us to pursue de-extinction, this much is clear: to de-extinct a species (and subsequently to restore a breeding population to the wild) promotes biodiversity. Environmentalists should embrace de-extinction efforts for that reason.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of For the passage below, do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, offer what you believe to be the best objection to the argument. This objection could be to any premise of the Principle Justification or Principle Application portion of the argument. Clearly identify which premise you are engaging: "Premise 1 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument is false because . . ." or "Premise 2 of the Principle Application Sub-argument is false because . . . "
-Third, briefly explain how you believe the discussion should continue. What do you think is the author's best reply to the objection you have just raised?
The passage:
The resurrection of dinosaurs, as portrayed in Jurassic Park, is a fantasy. But we are in the early stages of developing the technology that would allow us to resurrect more recently extinct species, whose tissues or DNA we have well-preserved samples of. Extinct species that are candidates for resurrection include the woolly mammoth (whose tissues have been found preserved in permafrost) and the passenger pigeon (whose tissues have been preserved in museums). Many less famous species, from frogs to goats, are candidates for future de-extinction.
The ethics of de-extinction has split the environmentalist community. Should those who believe that humans have a duty to protect and preserve the environment support or oppose de-extinction projects?
 I am convinced that environmentalists should support de-extinction projects-or, rather, support at least some of them.
To begin, let us consider some interventions that environmentalists broadly accept as morally good.
First, consider the re-introduction of the gray wolf to Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone's wolf population was hunted to (local) extinction in the 1920s. In 1995, conservationists introduced a breeding population of gray wolves transported from Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada. The effect on Yellowstone Park has been incredible. The wolves control the elk population, which has allowed a huge increase in biodiversity, to the extent that the return of erosion-resisting native plants has altered the flow of rivers. Not everyone is happy- many ranchers and others who live near the park display the same fear and loathing of wolves that prompted their eradication in the 1920s. Despite these complaints, environmentalists broadly consider the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone among the movement's noblest triumphs.
Second, consider the captive breeding programs that saved the California condor from extinction. In the early 1980s, only 23 California condors were known to exist. They were all placed in a captive breeding program, with the goal of stabilizing their numbers and eventually re-introducing wild populations. The program continues, but has been successful thus far. Though the California condor is still critically endangered, hundreds have been introduced to the wild and are breeding there. This program required confining birds, and breeding them in captivity in a way that is starkly different from their natural breeding practices. But environmentalists broadly agree that pulling the bird back from the brink of extinction was the right thing to do.
Finally, consider the protections extended to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This tract of land is critical habitat for many species, including polar bears, Porcupine caribou, and Dall sheep.
Environmentalists have fought for years to protect this refuge from oil companies who would drill there. Environmentalists certainly accept that companies could make a tidy profit extracting oil from the refuge. They believe that protecting the refuge is the right thing to do, even if it costs an oil company an opportunity for additional profit.
What do these three causes have in common that makes them all paradigm cases of morally worthy conservation efforts?
 It isn't that everyone wants them- ranchers didn't want the wolves. It isn't that they are about stepping back and letting nature have the space to take its course- the captive breeding program for the condors was quite invasive. It isn't that they foster profit- protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling does not.
Triumphs of environmentalism aren't always profitable, or politically popular, or convenient for humans, or even lovely to humans. What makes something a triumph of environmentalism-an environmental goal morally worth pursuing-is that it secures or promotes biodiversity. That is the feature these paradigm cases have in common. They are all good because they secured or promoted biodiversity.
Whatever else might be said about the technologies that allow us to pursue de-extinction, this much is clear: to de-extinct a species (and subsequently to restore a breeding population to the wild) promotes biodiversity. Environmentalists should embrace de-extinction efforts for that reason.

For the Passage Below, Do the Following