Stakeholder #3

Every controversy has stakeholders in that controversy. This post will explore one stakeholder in the de-extinction of the Bucardo.

Q: Can you describe this third stakeholder in 200-250 words? 

 Stewart Brand is the reason I have chosen to do my project on de-extinction. Without first seeing his TED talk on de-extinction I would not have chosen to delve into the topic and find Alberto Fernandez-Arias and I would not have learned that de-extinction was even a real thing going on. Stewart Brand is originally from Illinois. He is 77 years old and has a degree in Biology from Stanford. He is an older man, a little bit on the heavier side but not obese. He has a receding hairline with what is left of his hair being white. He also wears large glasses. He is the author of five books and one of the founders of Revive and Restore. Stewart is very factual in his speech. He is very good at delivery his ideas while not acting as though he is shoving them down people’s throats. He is very compelling and encouraging when it comes to emotions. He tells his crowd not to mourn but to organize for the sake of species that are going and have gone extinct. He has very good people skills, unlike those of David Ehrenfeld, and knowledge to back up his argument.

Q: Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? 
"[the extinction of the passenger pigeon] saved the buffalo" 1:40

"Throughout humankind's history, we've driven species after species extinct: the passenger pigeon, the Eastern cougar, the dodo ... But now, we have the technology (and the biology)to bring back species that humanity wiped out.”

"They're learning how to build on good news. And they see reviving extinct species as the kind of good news you might be able to build on" 13:40

Q: Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they?
These claims are very valid. Do to heavy advocating and conservation efforts, the buffalo population has escaped from the brink of extinction. Brand makes a point that many species have gone extinct at the hands of humans and it is our duty to try as best we can to return those animals to their environments.

Q: Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
Stewart Brand and Alberto Fernandez-Arias share similar feelings towards de-extinction. Stewart Brand speaks more of the human contribution to species demise. He touched on how it is because of us that these animals are going extinct and how we have a moral obligation to try to revive them whereas some argue the morality of cloning something and how it is in a sense "playing God".

KyleWiTh. "Fort Providence Adventure" 12/21/2013 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic