Poll: Conservationism - Opinions?

[BlackStar42]

Pretty much the only reason people care about the panda is because it looks cute. If it was a spider, no-one would give a shit.

Spiders can be cute too...

:3

I'm not sure where I should stand in the whole Panda issue. To me, pandas are pretty interesting animals. It would be a shame for them to die out. At the same time though, if what people say about them not being able to adapt are true and we truly are just wasting money and time keeping them alive, well, I guess we should let nature do it's thing...

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

Seriously though, they can't even breed pandas in captivity because they refuse to fuck. You know you've failed as a species when you're too lazy to boink each other.

 

[Daverson]

Don't kid yourself, conservationism boils down to "survival of the cutest". Pandas are the perfect case in point, they'll never provide humanity, or any other species, anything more than the fact they look sort of like they'd be fun to hug.

(though, they are bears, so if someone else wants to try hugging them first, that's fine by me)

 

[Flac00]

2. Because we don't have a right to dictate which species live and which die
My first argument against this again has to do with smallpox, i.e. that any species that presents a threat to humanity must be driven to extinction for our own safety if possible. Pandas, of course, pose no such threat, but my second argument is related to the 'natural' one in that natural selection will always work to change species and cause them to adapt to new conditions. Literally the only thing people are doing to any environment is changing the selective pressures, which in turn result in adaptation by the local species (or invasion by foreign ones better suited to the new conditions). We are doing nothing that hasn't already been done countless times in Earth's history, and every time before, either an an existing species has changed or a new species has arisin altogether to fit the new ecological niches presented in the changed environment.

The problem is that we are the reason they are dying off. If we had not existed, pandas would have easily have survived a lot longer. This is UNnatural selection, the damage this can do to the environment is horrific if left unchecked. There are many extremely specialized species that take millions of years to go extinct, we are a factor that is causing these species now to go extinct. Our very presence is the problem. I'm not saying we should leave or something, just we pull damage control.

We ensure that if we have the ability, we should protect all animals from extinction.

Yes, there are other examples of unnatural selection (asteroids, ect.), but that doesn't not make it our fault. We can't just galavant around saying "Worse shit has happened" and not taking responsibility. As robin so eloquently stated in Batman and Robin, "You break it, you pay for it". The panda extinction is our fault, we might as well make it our duty to protect it now.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Well, because Pandas are me favourite animal of all time and existence I'm saying that conservationalistiniarism is a good thing.

 

[Flac00]

Pretty much the only reason people care about the panda is because it looks cute. If it was a spider, no-one would give a shit.

Spiders can be cute too...

:3

I'm not sure where I should stand in the whole Panda issue. To me, pandas are pretty interesting animals. It would be a shame for them to die out. At the same time though, if what people say about them not being able to adapt are true and we truly are just wasting money and time keeping them alive, well, I guess we should let nature do it's thing...

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

Seriously though, they can't even breed pandas in captivity because they refuse to fuck. You know you've failed as a species when you're too lazy to boink each other.

Question: would you fuck someone if you knew crowds of people were watching your every move? I know I wouldn't

 

[R Man]

I would say that people who ask this question don't understand ecology.

First of all Panda's are a flagship species. By protecting them we protect other, less lovable species, who might be more important. Does anyone remember Mao's 'kill a fly a day' campaign? It ended up creating plagues of garbage and other things.

Second of all destruction of animal habitats can have negative affects for humans. It can lead to the drying up of rivers, loss of nutrients through errosion, flash floods and salinity.

Third of all, conservation isn't even that expensive. Compared to the amount of money nations blow on pointless wars ecology is cheap. It can even make money through tourism.

Of course there is more to it than that, but it's a start.

 

[Saladfork]

And I have no idea what that would even exactly mean. Consistent impact? I must be equally destructive to the environment as my ancestors? Or must I have the same impact as the race of Homo Sapiens had - on average, the last 1,000,000 year?

By the way, I like this debate, I'm actually learning stuff and it looks like we're making 'progress'. It's way more satisfying than some other endless debates I've had on those forums.

And... you wrote 'consistant' in the last piece of text I quoted. That's actually proper Dutch. Are you Dutch?

Captcha; spelling bee. We should certainly preserve this animal!

What I mean is that if we ever did create an ecosystem that involved, say, a certain amount of pollution from a nearby town, and the local comunity adapted to not only survive but thrive in these conditions, if one was looking to conserve a species, it would be best to continue polluting it.

...I can't remember where I was going with that, though.

For the record, I'm less concerned with promoting my point of view than just debating with people. (And no, I'm actually Canadian.)

 

[Raven's Nest]

I would say that people who ask this question don't understand ecology.

First of all Panda's are a flagship species. By protecting them we protect other, less lovable species, who might be more important. Does anyone remember Mao's 'kill a fly a day' campaign? It ended up creating plagues of garbage and other things.

Second of all destruction of animal habitats can have negative affects for humans. It can lead to the drying up of rivers, loss of nutrients through errosion, flash floods and salinity.

Third of all, conservation isn't even that expensive. Compared to the amount of money nations blow on pointless wars ecology is cheap. It can even make money through tourism.

Of course there is more to it than that, but it's a start.

Essentially this...

Its been proven with mountain gorilla reserves. You can make more money from highlighting the plight of endangered animals which have mass appeal (such as Gorrilas, Pandas, Tigers etc) and setting up a tourism industry around them than you can from simply erasing the natural environment and making another palm oil plantation. It creates local jobs and increases the economy of what are often extremely poor communities. The benefits to these communities cannot be understated. Education, medicine, scientific research, opportunities and sustainable incomes for many families. Only one family in a village would benefit from running a farm.

Help them to help yourself.... Thats the easy way to provide a logical (as opposed to compassionate) argument for conservation

 

[tendaji]

You also have to realize that removing a species from the Food Web can damage the ecosystem around it.

If we look at the Mid-west where we wiped out almost all of the grey wolf population, the deer population skyrocketed to the point that they became unsustainable. The deer population was overeating the foliage and disease was running rampant throughout the population. Sure it was a good thing for hunters who wanted to hunt for some deer.

A theory my biology teacher always told me was called the Rivet theory. Think of a single species as a rivet on a plane, now all those species make up the entire ecosystem. Now let's start removing those rivets from the plane. How many will be removed before the plane will become unstable for flying? It's the same idea, if you take out a natural predator, or a prey species, the entire ecosystem is going to falter trying to stabilize itself from collapse. And personally I would hate to see what might happen in an entire ecosystem collapses and where that will put us.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

The Panda is worth saving because it is so adorable it would be criminal to let it die. Just look at it!

The other species are worth saving too, though many of them are significantly less adorable than the noble Panda.

 

[him over there]

Honestly panda's live because we want them to live. If the panda was an ugly snarling monster people wouldn't care about it, save for environmental groups who actually did research and found reasons to keep the species alive for ecological reasons.

Take sharks for example. I think sharks are awesome, but sharks are being hunted to dangerous levels illegal for shark fin soup. Most people don't care because they are sharks and they eat people or whatever but I want them saved. Not just because they rule but because removing an apex predator can have horrible repercussions on the ecosystem, an ecosystem which effects us.

So unless there are ecological reasons that benefit humans I think it's wrong to conserve some species and not others because it's essentially playing god. They sell tuna that says its dolphin safe, no dolphins were killed in the capture and killing of this tuna. People only care about dolphins because they like them, that's why they save them but go "Fuck you tuna your food". Dolphins are only entitled to better treatment than tuna because we like them more.
(This example is assuming that the number of dolphins coincidentally killed while fishing for tuna is not enough to have an ecological impact of course, I should get around to researching that.)