If we were a huge race of foresteating monstersnails we would destroy it for our needs too. Mans ways of spreading are just faster and more complicated. We are still part of nature.Trippy Turtle said:
Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?
- Thread starter rdaleric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People can spend their time and money how ever they want to. If you are asking if I, personally, should let the pandas die, as in it was up to me to save them, then yes, cause I won't save them, I would rather go shopping at a mall that was built on top of their native habitat.
It's called death. It's unavoidable.WanderingFool said:I feel you are referencing Robot Chicken with the last sentence.Bobbity said:No. Even though they're a total fuck-up of evolution, I don't think that we should let them die out if we have the power to stop it.
On the other hand, it'll likely become even harder to keep them alive, the more dependant on us that they become.
/edit
Besides, we're causing their extinction, through the fragmentation of their habitats. Some might say that we owe it to them. Just keep in mind that the fuckers would eat us if they had the chance
Anyways, Im not an environmentalist in any ways, shape, or form, but I still think if we have the ability, we shouldnt let a species go extinct. I just dont like the idea of, "Here today, gone tomorrow."
Also, what master Carlin said.
pandas are carnivores who choose to eat bamboo even though it means they need to eat all they. pandas also don't like sex in order to increase panda sex drive people have made them watch panda porn.... I'm sorry but when we get to making porn for animals to keep them from extinction.... i think they need to die out.
Have you ever watched that part in a nature documentary when the cute baby duckling takes to the water for the first time and then you see a crocodile enter the water, eager to take a bite out of it?
Do you remember how you screamed for the bird to take flight and get out of the water even though you knew ultimatley that it was pointless and that ounce per ounce there was no way this crocodile wasn't going to win in its quest to eat that duckling?
Remember how sad it made you that the cute cuddly little duckling dies a gruesome death while the evil crocodile got his meal and goes off cackling wickedly to himself?
That's the natural world. It's very brutal, it's very cruel and it is very unforgiving. Only the toughest and most well adapted animal species survive, it's an arms race for survival that has gone on for millions of years.
And frankly, nature really couldn't give two sh*ts about what we might think is 'cute' or just things that in general appeal to us. If it did, that duckling would have lived to see it's first birthday and the croc would have become a vegan. Nature cares about what can survive and what can adapt to the hostile ever changing world.
The panda cannot adapt. It has a color scheme that doesn't help it hide out in the wilderness, it's a nomadic animal that barely comes in contact with other members of it's species, it's a carnivore that is forced to live on vegetation so to compensate it has to be constantly eating bamboo all day and night and doesn't have the energy to do anything productive and they can't seem to reproduce. Not to mention if a panda female has two cubs (which they often do) she'll just abandon one and let the other live.
Not only can't they breed, they can't even manage to raise their offspring.
They aren't well adapted and they simply are not a species made to last, in fact it's as if they were literally designed to die. Plus, they aren't a valuable part of their ecosystem. They aren't an apex predator or a main herd animal. All they do is eat bamboo and not reproduce, if left to their own devices I'm all but certain they would all be dead by now. And the rest of their ecosystem wouldn't even notice.
The only reason, the only reason that anyone wastes time and money on these creatures is that they were cute. If they were hideous and lumpy and stinky and vicious and nasty we would have yelled a long time ago:
"F*ck it, let them die. If they can't even be bothered to reproduce then they can't obviously be vital to the ecosystem!"
Instead we just keep spending money and leaping through hoops to try and save them. This isn't an action that comes from our desire to help the natural world. This comes from us trying to save something that we find appealing to us on a personal level. So now we have talk of cloning them, or making panda porn for them, or rubbing them together until something happens and it all just smacks of the sad realization that if we are seriously planning to clone them back into existence then we are talking about an animal that clearly wasn't meant to be alive.
So what if it's dying out? Millions of small insect populations all over the world die out every day and no one complains about them. Animal species come and go, it's a part of natural evolution. What is happening to the pandas is just that, natural evolution. They aren't a species meant to adapt.
You can't argue that human interference has caused their population decline, because nowadays human interference is the only thing keeping them alive. They are on life support, we are refusing to let them die out because we find them so cute even though from a pure analytical standpoint, apart from their aesthetic appeal to us, they offer nothing of any value or worth that would actually make them worth saving.
Except for that if it weren't for them, the dumbest life form ever born from evolution would be Ke$ha.
That's the point, just because we like a certain species does not mean it deserves to live. Anymore than just because we don't like a certain animal species, it deserves to die. I absolutely think we need to stop deforestation and polluting the oceans, and I'll stand proud to prevent the slaughter of animals in their natural habitat by humans.
But honestly, if an animal species simply cannot adapt, won't reproduce and offers nothing of value to its ecosystem of any kind and is dying out very fast on its own... maybe that means it wasn't a species meant to last.
Us trying to save it just because we think it's cute is just plain silly, as I said before... nature just does not work that way.
I'm not saying we should kill them all, we should just take a step back and stop going to such stupid and extreme measures to save them all. Hold back and see, maybe they will adapt and maybe not.
They have a right to live, of course. But a species also has the right to go extinct. Let's let them see on their own terms, which path the species goes.
For what it's worth though, I still argue we should save the tiger. Because at least currently, they still understand what their genitals are for.
Do you remember how you screamed for the bird to take flight and get out of the water even though you knew ultimatley that it was pointless and that ounce per ounce there was no way this crocodile wasn't going to win in its quest to eat that duckling?
Remember how sad it made you that the cute cuddly little duckling dies a gruesome death while the evil crocodile got his meal and goes off cackling wickedly to himself?
That's the natural world. It's very brutal, it's very cruel and it is very unforgiving. Only the toughest and most well adapted animal species survive, it's an arms race for survival that has gone on for millions of years.
And frankly, nature really couldn't give two sh*ts about what we might think is 'cute' or just things that in general appeal to us. If it did, that duckling would have lived to see it's first birthday and the croc would have become a vegan. Nature cares about what can survive and what can adapt to the hostile ever changing world.
The panda cannot adapt. It has a color scheme that doesn't help it hide out in the wilderness, it's a nomadic animal that barely comes in contact with other members of it's species, it's a carnivore that is forced to live on vegetation so to compensate it has to be constantly eating bamboo all day and night and doesn't have the energy to do anything productive and they can't seem to reproduce. Not to mention if a panda female has two cubs (which they often do) she'll just abandon one and let the other live.
Not only can't they breed, they can't even manage to raise their offspring.
They aren't well adapted and they simply are not a species made to last, in fact it's as if they were literally designed to die. Plus, they aren't a valuable part of their ecosystem. They aren't an apex predator or a main herd animal. All they do is eat bamboo and not reproduce, if left to their own devices I'm all but certain they would all be dead by now. And the rest of their ecosystem wouldn't even notice.
The only reason, the only reason that anyone wastes time and money on these creatures is that they were cute. If they were hideous and lumpy and stinky and vicious and nasty we would have yelled a long time ago:
"F*ck it, let them die. If they can't even be bothered to reproduce then they can't obviously be vital to the ecosystem!"
Instead we just keep spending money and leaping through hoops to try and save them. This isn't an action that comes from our desire to help the natural world. This comes from us trying to save something that we find appealing to us on a personal level. So now we have talk of cloning them, or making panda porn for them, or rubbing them together until something happens and it all just smacks of the sad realization that if we are seriously planning to clone them back into existence then we are talking about an animal that clearly wasn't meant to be alive.
So what if it's dying out? Millions of small insect populations all over the world die out every day and no one complains about them. Animal species come and go, it's a part of natural evolution. What is happening to the pandas is just that, natural evolution. They aren't a species meant to adapt.
You can't argue that human interference has caused their population decline, because nowadays human interference is the only thing keeping them alive. They are on life support, we are refusing to let them die out because we find them so cute even though from a pure analytical standpoint, apart from their aesthetic appeal to us, they offer nothing of any value or worth that would actually make them worth saving.
Except for that if it weren't for them, the dumbest life form ever born from evolution would be Ke$ha.
That's the point, just because we like a certain species does not mean it deserves to live. Anymore than just because we don't like a certain animal species, it deserves to die. I absolutely think we need to stop deforestation and polluting the oceans, and I'll stand proud to prevent the slaughter of animals in their natural habitat by humans.
But honestly, if an animal species simply cannot adapt, won't reproduce and offers nothing of value to its ecosystem of any kind and is dying out very fast on its own... maybe that means it wasn't a species meant to last.
Us trying to save it just because we think it's cute is just plain silly, as I said before... nature just does not work that way.
I'm not saying we should kill them all, we should just take a step back and stop going to such stupid and extreme measures to save them all. Hold back and see, maybe they will adapt and maybe not.
They have a right to live, of course. But a species also has the right to go extinct. Let's let them see on their own terms, which path the species goes.
For what it's worth though, I still argue we should save the tiger. Because at least currently, they still understand what their genitals are for.
An interesting question is would anyone be asking this if they weren't cute and cuddly?
I hate to say it but any speices that won't have sex to save itself from extinction probably doesn't deserve it. Its horrible to watch a species go like this, but they're not really putting the effort in either.
I hate to say it but any speices that won't have sex to save itself from extinction probably doesn't deserve it. Its horrible to watch a species go like this, but they're not really putting the effort in either.
Wait....What...
Why are we hating the panada?
I see that from how you see....We now control life and death of all
Man: The Grim Reaper
Why are we hating the panada?
I see that from how you see....We now control life and death of all
Man: The Grim Reaper
Well....technically no. You see Panda's are cute, right
Humans like things that are cute, certain features make humans happy and reduce stress.
This make me think that Panda genetics are sneaky, mother nature knows what she is doing. Cats can imitate the pitch of a babies cry for example. Symbiotic relationships aren't all that unusual. They would have died out if it wasn't for us being here, but we are here so they aren't dying out. If you see what I'm trying to say
In conclusion sneaky Panda cuteness is what is keeping thier species alive. Something that sharks in all thier evolutionary perfection seem to fail to pull off. I mean;
That's clearly intentional, that panda is totally playing us right there. I'm telling you.
Ducttapejedi has apparently mind melded with me...curious.
Humans like things that are cute, certain features make humans happy and reduce stress.
This make me think that Panda genetics are sneaky, mother nature knows what she is doing. Cats can imitate the pitch of a babies cry for example. Symbiotic relationships aren't all that unusual. They would have died out if it wasn't for us being here, but we are here so they aren't dying out. If you see what I'm trying to say
In conclusion sneaky Panda cuteness is what is keeping thier species alive. Something that sharks in all thier evolutionary perfection seem to fail to pull off. I mean;
That's clearly intentional, that panda is totally playing us right there. I'm telling you.
Ducttapejedi has apparently mind melded with me...curious.
We sometimes forget that extinction is a natural part of the natural selection process. Yes, mankind has contributed to the extinction of many species, and our impact on the environment makes it difficult to adapt.rdaleric said:
That does not mean, however, that we're the cause of all extinction. We're a factor, yes, but to all appearances, pandas weren't doing so hot anyway. The dinosaurs went extinct without our assistance, as did several balillion other species.
So yeah, I say let them die out. They are presumably rather unimportant to their eco-systems and are currently being kept alive because they're aesthetically pleasing. Same thing with baby seals. Clubbing them is actually a very humane way of killing them, it's just that the vegetarians can't handle the thought of their widdle doe-eyes being squashed.
Let's lose the fucking pandas.
Well, while I suppose the natural instinct is to argue... with a Commander Sheperd in shades and a reference to one of my sacred deities, I submit defeat to your argument. Well played sir, well played.Venereus said:It's called death. It's unavoidable.WanderingFool said:I feel you are referencing Robot Chicken with the last sentence.Bobbity said:No. Even though they're a total fuck-up of evolution, I don't think that we should let them die out if we have the power to stop it.
On the other hand, it'll likely become even harder to keep them alive, the more dependant on us that they become.
/edit
Besides, we're causing their extinction, through the fragmentation of their habitats. Some might say that we owe it to them. Just keep in mind that the fuckers would eat us if they had the chance
Anyways, Im not an environmentalist in any ways, shape, or form, but I still think if we have the ability, we shouldnt let a species go extinct. I just dont like the idea of, "Here today, gone tomorrow."
Also, what master Carlin said.
I would have no problems with simply letting them die. The claim that they are "Only dying because we are dickheads" doesn't really hold much water with me- with our behavioral patterns and intellectual capabilities, we established dominion over all those less able to survive, as beings have done since life's first dawning.
They are unable, at present, to survive alone? They have not adapted to the given environment, and we all know the consequences of that. A beetle may well be unable to survive in its environment because these goddamn migrating birds keep interfering, and this is accepted as natural- what is the difference?
That said, I'm not going to lobby for their deaths, either- they harm no one, and people feel strongly about the issue.
They are unable, at present, to survive alone? They have not adapted to the given environment, and we all know the consequences of that. A beetle may well be unable to survive in its environment because these goddamn migrating birds keep interfering, and this is accepted as natural- what is the difference?
That said, I'm not going to lobby for their deaths, either- they harm no one, and people feel strongly about the issue.
Hey, yeah, why not!
We already fucked up all the Thylacines, Quaggas, Dodos and Caribbean Monk Seals - why not the Pandas too!
...
Why does the word 'humane' mean 'kindness, mercy, sympathy' when humanity is just being a dick towards everyone and everything?
Just sayin'.
We already fucked up all the Thylacines, Quaggas, Dodos and Caribbean Monk Seals - why not the Pandas too!
...
Why does the word 'humane' mean 'kindness, mercy, sympathy' when humanity is just being a dick towards everyone and everything?
Just sayin'.