Genma is not amused by your bigotry. The Pandas are thriving elsewhere, humanity just doesn't know it.
>.>
Pandas: Let them die.
- Thread starter Loop Stricken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Genma is not amused by your bigotry. The Pandas are thriving elsewhere, humanity just doesn't know it.
>.>
Oh god. What has Science Done? Kung fu bears? imagine if that guy got loose. No one will be safe.loc978 said:
Also isn't it actually illegal to kill pandas in china? punishable by death?
And no. we need to clone a bunch of them. Then ride them like we do horses. Then we have panda races.
But in all seriousness we should be better spending by saving the rainforest and all the scary animals in there.
But...but...they're...
I didn't even know there was a country named "trisigh" nor did I know it was conquered.
SO CUTE!!
Don't blame humans. Blame the fact that you cannot get these creatures to have sex. I doubt humans caused that.Jordi said:
And yet the gods of Evolution granted them the "6th finger"Loop Stricken said:
Their paws are evolved in such a manner that they can hold the bamboo they eat.
Seriously the animal evolved so that it could eat more bamboo! Silly animal, but oh so awesome looking
I'm sure that in those millions of years before humans interfered they were having plenty of sex. At least enough to survive for so long. I don't think you can deny that humans have had a great effect on the panda population. True, they are now trying to keep them from going extinct, but it's not really working because apparently pandas don't like having sex in captivity. You could say that is their own fault then, but it were humans who changed their living conditions, and I think it is fairly safe to say that without human interference there is no reason to assume they wouldn't have lasted another couple of million years.CM156 said:
Evolutionary speaking and without humans, yes Panda's would die out- but humans are intelligent animals whom can manipulate nature. I think most humans would prefer it if panda's stuck around because they are funny cute animals, and since we have the power to keep them alive as a species we'll do that.
The problem is, we as humans tend to see ourselves outside of normal evolutionary terms.
We have ourselves hunted the pandas and destroyed their environments. Their rarity is largely due to our actions. Which weren't really evolutionarily necessary.
OP you are right, if the Panda's die out, due to their evolutionary failure to adapt, let them, but if we cause them to die out, in the interest of making better cities of using their fur to make blankets, then we've killed something which we had no need to. I mean, look at humanity. We basically ignore the logic of Darwinism: We sponsor daredevils and stuntmen, we care for the old and the sick to the point where we have millions of people incapable of looking after themselves, especially surviving on their own (Look at Australia, a nation with an "Aging population" The mean age of the Australian is increasing, and is predicted to damage or destroy the economy in future). If we disregard Darwinism's impact on ourselves, then we shouldn't get to call on it to damn another species.
TLDR: we don't act entirely on instincts, our actions must be judged by conscience, and morality. Darwinism hardly applies to humanity anymore, so why should we attempt to use it to damn a species?
We have ourselves hunted the pandas and destroyed their environments. Their rarity is largely due to our actions. Which weren't really evolutionarily necessary.
OP you are right, if the Panda's die out, due to their evolutionary failure to adapt, let them, but if we cause them to die out, in the interest of making better cities of using their fur to make blankets, then we've killed something which we had no need to. I mean, look at humanity. We basically ignore the logic of Darwinism: We sponsor daredevils and stuntmen, we care for the old and the sick to the point where we have millions of people incapable of looking after themselves, especially surviving on their own (Look at Australia, a nation with an "Aging population" The mean age of the Australian is increasing, and is predicted to damage or destroy the economy in future). If we disregard Darwinism's impact on ourselves, then we shouldn't get to call on it to damn another species.
TLDR: we don't act entirely on instincts, our actions must be judged by conscience, and morality. Darwinism hardly applies to humanity anymore, so why should we attempt to use it to damn a species?
Well, this can go two ways for me. First, we could let evolution take its course and eradicate these creatures not even fit enough to breed, like they biologically deserve. Being able to reproduce is not just a requirement for a species' survival, it's a requirement for being considered alive in the first place. Basically, if these pandas can't screw, screw them.
But with regards to evolution, humanity has always been more, "Let's see how we can use this," rather than, "Let's just let it take its course." Case and point: doggies. We took wolves, made a completely new species out of them, and varied that species so much so that its largest subspecies is hundreds of times larger than its smallest. It would be like if there was another subspecies of human that was the size of a two-story house.
My point being, for people, evolution is more of a tool, sometimes even a plaything. It's one of those forces of nature that we have a lot of control over. If we want a species to live, we have the means to do so. If we want a species to die, we have the means to do that too. I personally don't really care about pandas. They're a waste of resources that could be much better spent. But I'm not the one with the reins, so whatever.
But with regards to evolution, humanity has always been more, "Let's see how we can use this," rather than, "Let's just let it take its course." Case and point: doggies. We took wolves, made a completely new species out of them, and varied that species so much so that its largest subspecies is hundreds of times larger than its smallest. It would be like if there was another subspecies of human that was the size of a two-story house.
My point being, for people, evolution is more of a tool, sometimes even a plaything. It's one of those forces of nature that we have a lot of control over. If we want a species to live, we have the means to do so. If we want a species to die, we have the means to do that too. I personally don't really care about pandas. They're a waste of resources that could be much better spent. But I'm not the one with the reins, so whatever.
Make them into burgers and serve them near a resteraunt in China that uses cats for ingredients.
I just think we should worry about them less because they're so bad at natural selection... but conservation efforts are important, I would like my children to be able to see a Panda as I have, just like any other animal, and not just read about them in a book.
I like pandas and all but I wonder what panda stew or panda steaks would taste like. If we stop trying to save them is it okay if I eat one?
Got to say, when I see a species where the only thing it needs to do to ensure its own survival is fuck I do kind of feel that it's a species that Natural Selection wants gone.
But they're cute so whatever.
But they're cute so whatever.