Much agreed. Pandas are so bloody stupid they can't figure out how to breed to save their own species from extinction. They are of no value at all ecologically. They can't even figure out how to EAT properly. There is simply no good reason to save them, except because they look cute.Bayushi_Kouya said:Isn't it funny how whether or not an animal is saved from extinction is based on how closely it resembles a two-year-old child? We wouldn't be having this debate if the question were about the hagfish or some species of lobster.
I can't condone the continued existence of an animal as INTENSELY stupid as the panda, but by the same token, the only thing worse than the panda protectors now will be the panda protectors after they've all gone. Like a surviving spouse, their departed SO will become more and more idealized as the years go on, until the panda becomes the symbol of everything beautiful and innocent in the world, and becomes the symbol for -- oh God, my brain's locked up just thinking about it.
If I may contribute to the comedians that have discussed this topic:CrazyCapnMorgan said:OK. Enough of the emotions, enough of the debate, just enough of all of it. Time to end this thread.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious, but I am so that's the way it comes out.
but we are playing destroyer look at all we have done to their habitat. besides would you like to go extinct because "we are to expensive to keep around"?Ophiuchus said:I'm all for just leaving them alone. It's not up to us to play creator or destroyer. If a species can't survive on its own... well, that's nature doing what nature's best at. It'd be a different story if we were actively destroying them, but we're not.