Why argue with someone like that? Just simply insult them and discredit their character and their ridiculous notions. Some peoples ideas are so stupid that arguing merely wastes both parties time. Deliver your disapproval in an effective way and move on. Hopefully they change their mind, or the person is taken out by something, so we don't have their cancerous ideas spread. Pandas deserve to live as much as humans do. Animals were here first. Our job is protect them and the environment they live in. We are doing a horrible job and idiots that argue for their death are the more useless ones that should go.
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."
D49 How liberal of you! Discredit, attack and hopefully destroy anyone who doesn't think like you.
I must admit that I feel sorry for the person stating that panda's should be allowed to die. Not because I think he is wrong - but just simply from the notion that people just do not like to hear why their oppinion does not make sense. In this case he is alone in trying to make people understand why his statement have a ring of truth.
Too many people see animals and humans as two different entities. If we decide not to talk religion we are nothing more than a breed of animals that have developed into a fairly dominant species here on earth.
It has been and will continue to be natural for species to die and/or evolve into new forms. It is only with the "cuteness factor".
The people who truly believe that all living things have a right to life should really look into all living creatures we kill off every day for us to feel better and not get sick by using medicine or killing off animals that are considered pests. Pests are just animals that have been given a natural ability to survive where we dont really want them.
The whole discussion is not just if Panda's should be allowed to live on with human assistance - but if in essence that nature stops here and we decide we are a "unnatural being" and we now need to manage nature for the rest of the world. With our current track record I doubt that would be a good idea.
We are a part of an eco-system that changes - and always will change. Human kind have only been here for such a short time that we have not really a historical tradition of seing how much things have changed. If we were here at the dawn of earth we would have experienced a completely different environment - and with time we will see something completely different too.
Earth DO have a shelf life albeit it is a long time away - but there has been 95% extinction several times - and no - it was not our fault then.
I am fine with people wanting to keep cute cuddly fluffy animals - but please be honest and say its for YOUR sake and not earth, because earth do not really care either way. Earth will continue to rotate about the sun and change as it has for billions of years.
If you are honest and say - sure we humans have an effect and we want the effect to be FOR us and not against us. Then it is much easier to talk about what do we save and how.
Panda's Reasons for dying:
1. Pandas used to hunt small rodents 8 million years ago, then they decided that was bad and started eating only bamboo, which is far less nutritious (they also stopped running, and now only can walk, or at best hobble quickly).
2. They don't just eat bamboo, they eat the two most endangered types of bamboo growing in the wild, and these species have never grown as major types of bamboo.
3. Pandas are black and white in a green forest.
4. Female Pandas ovulate once per year, which is just not a reasonable means for keeping the species alive.
"...this is an animal that's vital to the ecosystem..."
What? The Earth wouldn't even blink if they all disappeared tomorrow. We would be poorer for it for sure if they were gone, but "vital"?
"We Entertain When It Rains"
An interesting article, but it seems very targeted at a specific and poor argument. I agree with the specifics of what are said, but disagree with the purpose of the article. The arguments you chose to attack were very poor indeed, but they aren't the real reasons we should let the Panda go. Note: I'm not saying we should kill the pandas, just that they should be left to be on their own. IF they go extinct, so be it. If they survive, awesome.
Statement: "Pandas have a really ridiculous diet. Can you believe they only eat non-nutritious bamboo?"
Paraphrased Response: It's ok to eat something poor if it exists! There's also tons of food for the panda to eat!
My Response: Sure, it's ok to include something poor in your diet. It's not ok to make that your sole source of nutrition. ( Note: The panda is still capable of eating fish, eggs and a number of other foods, but it can not get them in the quantities needed to survive. ) Also, the panda doesn't eat any old bamboo. It is notoriously picky. It does have a relatively wide range of actual species it can eat, but most of those are not found in the areas it inhabits. To make things even worse, Bamboo species will flower and die off at the same time. This means that a panda must live in an area of 2 or more bamboo species, or its food will disappear and it will starve.
Conclusion: The pandas current diet has fundamentally trapped the panda. This has proven disastrous for countless species. However, if we stop babying them and getting them all of the bamboo they want for now, they still have the ability to go back to a wider diet of more widely available food. This would allow the panda to be more energetic, travel further and to different environments, allowing the species to thrive. If it does not make these changes, it is doomed.
Statement: "But the panda is a bear! Bears aren't even evolved to eat bamboo!"
Paraphrased Response: What you're really saying is it's bad for animals to eat something different than what we consider normal, but there's nothing wrong with that.
My Response: See above response and conclusion. The issue wasn't necessarily that the panda eats something different, it's what specifically it has chosen, and how limited that choice was.
Statement: "Pandas are so lazy! They just sleep all the time. Why should we care about a sleepy lazy bear?"
Paraphrased Response: I'm just going to joke around, cause some animals are lazier than others.
My Response: Most of those other animals can afford to be lazier, at least for now. You will also note though that many of them are quite active when they do move around. Consider the various cats. They love to lie around and sleep. Once they get up and move though, they are extremely active and fast. Meanwhile, the panda isn't just a bit lazy. Its entire metabolism is vastly lower than normal due to its poor diet. Even its body shape has adjusted to use less energy.
Conclusion: The pandas are further unable to adapt to any changes because it just isn't capable of really moving to a superior location. They even avoid steep hills just to save a bit of energy. However, if they were to move off of their poor diet, they could get more energy and move around more. This would let them find better sources of food, and adapt to more changes in their local environment. Again, this would help them to not merely survive, but to truly thrive.
Statement: "It's dying out so fast because it has such a low birth rate. This is somehow the panda's fault!"
Paraphrased Response: It happens. Some species have lower birthrates than others. There's nothing wrong with that.
My Response: Partially true. Many species do indeed have lower birth rates. However, birth rate average must at least equal the death rate. If it is lower, then the species is dying out. I do not believe this is an issue for the panda by itself in the wild. However, it does mean that combined with the other various problems, the chances for the species to survive are even lower. A higher birthrate is highly advantageous for a species that is close to extinction. This gives more chances to survive. Of course, as long as the local environment isn't overrun. Too many pandas too soon would mean a huge population crash as they fight for food.
Conclusion: It's lower than ideal for the current situation, but it is not one of the reasons the panda should be left to die out on its own.
Statement: "Pandas don't even like to have sex! They're, like, bad at it, and we have to show them panda porn and stuff."
Paraphrased Response: This is a problem in captivity! Some species, including humans, just don't do well there.
My Response: Correct.
Statement: "We're spending so much money on these dumb bears! We should be spending it elsewhere!"
Paraphrased Response: If we stop spending on them, it doesn't mean that money will just magically go somewhere else we want! Also, the panda helps bring awareness and bring in money!
My Response: It's true that if we stopped funding the pandas, that money wouldn't necessarily go to a different species. However, they are costing us money. As you yourself mentioned, pandas cost a zoo more money than they take in. Apparently, they aren't a good enough attraction considering their cost. A panda costs on average 5 times more than an elephant. Imagine what a zoo could do just if it didn't have to pay for the panda. Just because you lose a sort of spokesperson animal, doesn't mean everyone will completely stop coming, ignore all conservation efforts, and stop giving out money. They would quickly take up other animals as the front line, and even the panda itself could continue to be a just cause. It would be a lot easier to argue for earlier intervention if the panda went extinct. Consider how powerful this would be: "We had the ability to save the panda if only we had tried a bit sooner, before it was too late! There are dozens of species that are going in the same direction as the Giant Panda, but they haven't fallen off the cliff yet. If we act now, we could stop yet another species going the way of the dodo."
Conclusion: Just because the money might not go exactly where and how we want, doesn't mean it is not being wasted now.
Statement: "But Chris Packham said..."
Paraphrased Response: You shouldn't listen to one person, and use that as your sole argument.
My Response: You also shouldn't immediately ignore him. No one argues that the pandas habitat isn't hurting really bad. The question is, is enough still around? This is a rather tricky question, and part of it comes down to another question. At what point is a species fine? As mentioned previously, the panda currently has a very limited habitat, it can not survive outside of it, and it does not seem interested in leaving. If it doesn't immediately die out there, can it really ever thrive, or will it always be a hairs breadth from a new extinction? What happens if a small meteor explodes over that natural reserve? It doesn't need to be a global killer, or really even destroy the forest. It just needs to damage some of it for a short term and the panda won't survive.
Conclusion: Its habitat is severely damaged and limited. If the panda doesn't adapt to new habitats in the area and allow it to spread, it's in a dead end. There's no chance for it to truly continue.
Statement: "Pandas are just a figurehead; they get way too much money just because they're cute.
Paraphrased Response: So what if they're a figurehead and getting lots of money? They should have the same chance to live as any other animal!
My Response: I agree. Except we aren't giving them the same chance. We're giving them far more, and they are still struggling. Yes, we are the main pressure causing them to go extinct. This doesn't mean they have to be saved at any cost. We should definitely limit our impact on the world, but we shouldn't go out of our way to save a dead-end species that very likely would have gone extinct with out us eventually. We shouldn't play god one way OR the other.
Conclusion: Deciding one species to live is as much playing god as deciding another should die. Instead, we should limit our impact on them, and then let them survive or go extinct on their own.
Statement: "But why bother saving them at all?"
Paraphrased Response: Partly because we did this to them, and partly because they are a means to get other things protected.
My Response: For the first part, see above. For the second, this is a poor reason, but unfortunately the way we handle things now it is the norm.
We shouldn't have to have a figurehead species going extinct to have to make various preserves or raise awareness. Especially considering how short sighted this is. If the Panda is the reason for that national park, what happens to the park when the panda is gone? Or what happens if it begins to thrive outside of there?
Conclusion: We need to work harder to find more fundamental reasons to save various forests and parks around the world. A common cause that doesn't risk disappearing in the future. Once we find these fundamental goals that can be applied across the world, we won't be attempting to save a few already severely damaged locations. We can start protecting at least parts of the ones that are still thriving today that might disappear tomorrow, all without having to find a rare figurehead species. The longer we hold onto our current figure heads as the reason to save and protect locations, the longer until we can find this real fundamental reason to protect many locations.
Finally: None of my arguments are made on a simply rhetorical level. These are my honest beliefs.
There doesn't really need to be an argument about it.
If conservation seeks to preserve life and nature then they immediately contradict themselves by putting animals in captivity and controlling their breeding in hopes of keeping them alive and/or returning them to sustainable numbers.
Yes, their extinction is likely due primarily to mankind's various acts of destruction, but that's life. We need space, we need resources, we need to expand. If that means certain creatures die off, then that's just the natural course of things.
The problem with this entire debate is the assumption that what man does to survive is not natural, so these animals and such are given special protections and priorities because god forbid if something cute and cuddly gets run over by a bulldozer.
The world either cannot support these creatures anymore or these creatures cannot support themselves. It's selfish and vain to keep them living in unnatural conditions for any reason be it study, guilt, amusement, what have you.
I don't think the animal needs to die, but I firmly believe that conservationists need to allow the animal to die. Conservation goes against nature. Preservation is cool, but conservation is not all it's making itself out as.
Let the pandas die out instead of living these lonely lives in captivity. Let all the dwindling species die out. Prevent people from killing them off, but let them go if they are thinning out...
That article title cracks me up...
I've got the only argument you could ever need:
Look how fuzzy they are! awwwww!
Are pandas good for anything? Are they eatable?
as Marvin replied I didn't know that a single mom can make $4482 in a few weeks on the internet. did you read this web page .......jobs64.com
Its a better article on how to deal with trolls. But the pandas are nice.
Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about the "need" to let a particular species die out.
This is a stupid article, the claims made against Pandas look like a 4 year old would said them. Plus no one says Pandas deserve to die(stupidest claim ever?).
I agree with all of what zechio said. The problem with the whole Panda thing is that WAY too much money goes into saving them, with poor results.
"Pandas do get a lot of money, but they're still highly endangered and have a very clear risk of going extinct in the near future, despite all that money. They deserve to live as much as any animal; it's not fair to hurt their chance of survival just because other people think they're cute. I'm not even sure that argument makes sense. It's not like pandas are over-funded and roaming the streets of American suburbs"
Pandas are too over-funded, so stop acting like they aren't. And they only get all the money because they're cute. If Pandas were butt-ugly, no one would care about them, that's the truth. People only care about cute animals and they could care less if an "ugly" animal went extincted.
The Chinese Giant Salamander is a perfect example. The Chinese Giant Salamander is LITERALLY being eaten to extinction. It is considered a luxury food and sell for 1000's of US dollars, despite being CRITICALLY ENDANGERED. And VERY little money goes to saving them because they are, you guessed it, "ugly". People simply don't care about animals if they don't make them go, "Aww!".
I'm not saying Pandas deserve to die, no animal deserves to die. But the Panda is not the only endangered animal but most people act like it is. Millions of dollars goes into Panda breeding programs were most of that money could go into protecting their habitats. After all, if the Pandas's habitat is completely destroyed all that effort in breeding programs would be for nothing.
That's was what Chris Packham is talking about. He's being realistic, all that money could go into saving their habitats instead of pouring it into pointless breeding programs.
SmokeymcRib did you even READ the article?
"This is a stupid article, the claims made against Pandas look like a 4 year old would said them. Plus no one says Pandas deserve to die(stupidest claim ever?). "
Surprise Surprise, the ignorant people who make ignorant claims that an animal deserves to go extinct make ignorant arguments. Many, many people say pandas deserve to die for the most ignorant of reasons. If you were engaged in Giant Panda Conservation or any type of "controversial" animal conservation you'd know about this.
"I agree with all of what zechio said. The problem with the whole Panda thing is that WAY too much money goes into saving them, with poor results."
Because, like Nosowitz said, it's apparently the panda's fault that we don't know how they mate naturally in the wild, even though trial and error has gotten us closer to breeding them with success. ex. Panda cubs would die alot in captivity. We soon found out that switching cubs from human care to mother care raises the success chances to 95-99%.
So if a problem is hard or if there's some difficulties,we should stop spending money to solve said problem (if it gets too expensive to ignorant people who have 0 idea as to how the money is being spent in the first place)? Maybe we should stop spending money on cancer programs as many different types of cancers have had very little success in curing them.
"Pandas are too over-funded, so stop acting like they aren't. And they only get all the money because they're cute. If Pandas were butt-ugly, no one would care about them, that's the truth. People only care about cute animals and they could care less if an "ugly" animal went extincted."
Do you realize that certain animals depending on their recovery program need more money than other animals? Do you realize how expensive it is to care for and breed animals, especially one like the Giant Panda?
Many people thought bees were ugly and useless. We're now finding out that bees are important to the health of millions of plants and that mass killing them via pesticides isn't good. Sharks are considered "ugly" by many people yet many are against finning them. Elephants are considered "ugly" by many people yet many are against killing them for their tusks. "You only want to save it because it's cute" is a flawed argument made by ignorant people who have nothing to argue.
"The Chinese Giant Salamander is a perfect example. The Chinese Giant Salamander is LITERALLY being eaten to extinction. It is considered a luxury food and sell for 1000's of US dollars, despite being CRITICALLY ENDANGERED. And VERY little money goes to saving them because they are, you guessed it, "ugly". People simply don't care about animals if they don't make them go, "Aww!". "
Or maybe it's because NOBODY is aware of the Giant Salamander's plight? And even if we did cut off all or some funding from Giant Pandas what makes you think that money is going to automatically go to saving the salamander? You are suggesting that saving an animal should be some picky-choosy game of "which ones are worthless/"wasting" too much money" which is a slap in the face to science based animal conservation everywhere.
"I'm not saying Pandas deserve to die, no animal deserves to die. But the Panda is not the only endangered animal but most people act like it is. Millions of dollars goes into Panda breeding programs were most of that money could go into protecting their habitats. After all, if the Pandas's habitat is completely destroyed all that effort in breeding programs would be for nothing.
That's was what Chris Packham is talking about. He's being realistic, all that money could go into saving their habitats instead of pouring it into pointless breeding programs."
Nobody is insisting the Giant Panda is the only animal that is endangered. Pandas are iconic, but they're not stopping anyone for donating time and money to save other animals. This black and white (heh) thinking is ridiculous.
So you didn't read the article nor do you have any idea as to what you're talking about. Miles upon miles of panda habitat is already set aside for them (and even more is being planned). The issue is that the areas are fragmented, so it's hard for pandas to travel from one area to another to mate.
Hundreds of pandas are being bred so that we have a fallback plan just in case something happens to the wild panda population. The 2008 earthquake is a good example of this as it risked killing off multiple pandas by destroying bamboo forests, denning sites, killing the pandas directly, etc. And it DID kill off multiple pandas (including captive ones) but gladly yet it didn't dent the wild population too hard.
The article ALREADY explained what Packham's position was on pandas and you're misquoting it.
How are you and other people expecting us to buy the habitat WITHOUT ensuring that we can get a stable population going in the first place anyways? If we buy the habitat will more pandas suddenly appear out of nowhere?
What the f**k I wish god strike him dead!
Whatever stoprequiredlogin, no need to get all butthurt for my mistake. And cute animals do get more attention then ugly animals. Maybe that's why nobody knows aboyt the Giant Chinese Salamander.
"Or maybe it's because NOBODY is aware of the Giant Salamander's plight? And even if we did cut off all or some funding from Giant Pandas what makes you think that money is going to automatically go to saving the salamander? You are suggesting that saving an animal should be some picky-choosy game of "which ones are worthless/"wasting" too much money" which is a slap in the face to science based animal conservation everywhere."
Ok so I skimmed through the article and shouldn't have done that but you are completely misquoting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that saving an animal is some pick and chose game, I'm saying it's unfair that some animals get more attention that others so stop getting butthurt.
Last comment for stoprequiredlogin(wish this site had edit comment or comment deletion options-_-)
I wasn't trying to refute the article in truth. The point of my comment was that "ugly animals get less attention by people than cute animals and that is unfair and wrong(and than you go and twist my words), plus I have never heard of anyone calling sharks and elephants.
*plus I have never heard of anyone calling sharks and elephants ugly, stupid typos
My mistake then, also you may not have heard of sharks/elephants being called ugly, but I know a particular friend who does think they're ugly. Simply google searching "Elephants are ugly/why are elephants so ugly?" brings up some not so nice results etc.
The issue is that the word ugly is subjective. So is the word cute. Being "ugly" has nothing to do with it. The Panda's appeal helps it earn money, but that money also goes to other animals in their habitat.
The issue is that the "ugly" animals do not have as much public outcry for their plights like the giant panda. You cannot expect people to help out an animal they know nothing about. If you truly want to save the "ugly" animals, then start spreading the word.