Интегрированное письмо TOEFL

📖 Текст для чтения

The concept of 'de-extinction'—the process of resurrecting extinct species through genetic engineering—has gained significant attention in recent years. Proponents argue that it offers unprecedented opportunities for conservation and scientific advancement. Three main arguments support this endeavor. First, de-extinction could restore biodiversity by reintroducing keystone species that once played vital roles in their ecosystems. For example, the woolly mammoth, if revived, could help maintain Arctic grasslands by trampling snow and promoting grass growth, thereby combating climate change. Second, the technologies developed for de-extinction, such as CRISPR gene editing and advanced cloning, could have spin-off benefits for conserving currently endangered species, by enhancing genetic diversity or even resurrecting lost genetic traits. Third, de-extinction has profound educational and ethical value, as it could inspire public interest in science and conservation, and provide a moral imperative to undo human-caused extinctions, thereby serving as a form of ecological atonement.

🎧 Лекция

While the allure of de-extinction is understandable, the lecture challenges the feasibility and wisdom of such efforts. First, the ecological benefits are speculative. Revived species, such as woolly mammoths, would be genetically modified hybrids, not true replicas, and their behavior and interactions in modern ecosystems are unpredictable. Moreover, reintroducing them could disrupt existing food webs and habitats, potentially causing more harm than good, especially since the ecosystems they once inhabited have evolved without them for millennia. Second, the technological spin-offs are overstated. The resources and funding poured into de-extinction research are enormous, and they divert scarce conservation dollars away from protecting living species that face immediate extinction. For instance, the cost of one de-extinction project could save dozens of critically endangered species through habitat protection or captive breeding. Third, the ethical argument is flawed. De-extinction is not true atonement; it creates a false sense that extinction is reversible, which undermines efforts to prevent extinctions in the first place. Furthermore, the welfare of resurrected animals is questionable, as they would be raised in artificial environments and may suffer health problems, raising serious animal welfare concerns.