Should we be allowed to bring animals back from the dead? As soon as you see the title, "Extinct Species Should Stay Extinct", you know that Ben A. Minteer from Slate thinks that we should not. While we do have the power to reverse past mistakes with other species, he insists that de-extinction would actually cut the value we hold for existing species along with lowering the morality we have for causing extinction. While I think he demonstrates his ethos quite magnificently to build his credibility to the reader, I also believe that his logos struggles to find a place in his piece as he ponders this important question we still ask ourselves today. Minteer tries to convince the audience that bringing back species from extinction would have dire consequences, but plays more to ethics and morality than to facts and reason, which is why his logos suffers a little bit. If he had provided more facts, statistics, or studies, then his argument would have been very hard to challenge.

Minteer begins his article discussing the history of two bird species that went extinct in the 1900s. At that time, no one really rallied together in order to save the disappearing species on the planet. But, as years passed by, and as genetic engineering developed, the author says we now have the ability "to rapidly sequence ancient DNA from preserved tissue of extinct animals to allow scientists to create approximations of lost species" (Minteer). One recent example of such projects connects to one of the bird species brought up at the beginning of the article. The author tells us that the "Long Now Foundation is supporting scientific efforts to re-create the passenger pigeon" (Minteer). This throws us right into the middle of the point of the argumentative article, which is that we should not be focusing our efforts into revitalizing old species. He sounds very sophisticated and knowledgeable and seems to have looked up the subject before. This aspect of his argumentative article serves to build his credibility. In fact, the end of the piece provides a brief description of its origin, stating that "this article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate" (Minteer). Coming from a source that was collaborated on by a well-known University and news site adds to the author's ethos, as not just any article gets published by highly acclaimed places. 

Minteer also demonstrates his ethos by staying tolerant and polite towards other views. He offers the audience an argument for the other side, by Stewart Brand, a supporter of de-extinction. The author tells us that he "respect[s] Brand's long and impressive career as a tech-friendly enviro-maverick" (Minteer), making us believe he is of good character. Readers are less likely to take someone who is rude and critical very seriously. His respect for the other side allows us to like him, and therefore be more willing to take him seriously. The mere fact that he even addresses the other side shows he is not stubborn and close-minded to other ideas. He is able to provide an argument for de-extinction, such as it "offers something vital to conservationists today: an alternative narrative unburdened by the handwringing over extinction and ecological loss" and refute the idea in the next paragraph by stating "it could undermine the moral lessons of extinction at a critical time in our environmental history" (Minteer). If we are able to undo our actions, extinction will not be something we will worry about, and we will not hold life as preciously as before if we believe we can undo it all.

While Minteer does establish himself and his viewpoint well to his audience, he does a poor job in my opinion backing it all up, appealing more to the moral makings of his audience rather than providing objective evidence. He addresses criticisms of de-extinction, by saying "that the newly engineered species will wreak havoc when released into the environment, especially since we may no longer have the space to accommodate them" (Minteer). Because of our growing population and therefore growing needs, Minteer brings up that we may not be able to give the newly brought back species the habitat they need to thrive. He could address competition due to the revived species now being alien species, and how current living organisms might be affected. There are recent examples of "animals bred in captivity and reintroduced to the wild after an absence (e.g., the California condor) (Minteer). Minteer would be able to relay the negative affects this might have had on other residing species. Instead, he tries to sway readers towards the moral high road, stating that de-extinction "doesn't reflect a sound conservation ethic" (Minteer). The problem he faces is that with new technology, it often comes down to what will make money and make most people happy. It is about bettering human life, and bringing animals back from the dead has "aesthetic, scientific, and even economical value to society" (Minteer). 

While Minteer is very successful in establishing himself as one to be trusted through his polite, sophisticated writing style and the background of the article he seems to lack the ability to fully construct a factual argument. He tries to play with his audience's sense of moral obligations. He touches ever so slightly on points that would have factual evidence to back him up such as the lack of space for revived species or the competition that might result between native and nonnatives, but instead of exploring the arguments that might have more reasonable points he tries to play with ethics and morals, ideals that vary in each individual. All in all though, he gets his point across and provides a convincing argument because we trusts what he says.

