Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[Russian_Assassin]

Try watching some more Discovery Channel or reading a couple of National Geographic books, m'kay? There are in fact quite a few species that have some issues with their genitalia and the uses thereof because of human pollution. However, the panda one is one of the most pressing. Besides, it's harder to make people care about crocodiles than cute looking pandas.

Ok, so let's disrespect other people's opinions and call them trolls! My post wasn't some objective statement. It's my view on the subject. The OP asked me, I answered. Do we really need to say IN MY OPINION every time we speak (I think Moviebob covered this notion)?

And even if humans were the cause, how do you suggest we deal with this scenario? A couple of nature loving scientists won't do shit. The people in power couldn't give less of a fuck about some animals dying, as long as it doesn't affect their profit. And guess who runs the show on this god damn planet?

If people want to save earth, we must take the power back in our hands and then we can decide the fate of the earth. Simply yelling at the politicians to help save the earth isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[Haydyn]

Yes. It's expensive, it goes against natural selection, and quite truthfully the fact that we have world famous scientists spending their careers trying to get pandas laid is at its very core the reason there is sin in the world.

 

[GeneralChaos]

No, we shouldn't. Not because they're valuable or cute or anything. No, we should keep them alive because Nature has made it very clear that it wants them gone and since when do we listen to nature? Nature has been getting rather uppity lately and I think it's time we reminded it who's boss.
We're the Human Race, we can do whatever the hell we want. If we say that a massive evolutionary dead end will survive until the end of time, then there will be Pandas watching the heat death of the universe.

 

[bdcjacko]

If they are going extinct, they are going extinct. We can't force an animal dying off because it sucks at living.

 

[razor343]

I say we start eating them. That way they WONT become extinct and we'll make serious money off them.

 

[Owlslayer]

Well, if it up to me, I'd not let pandas become extinct, just because of their cuteness level.
And no thanks, i don't want to be quoted and shown a gross picture of a panda. Seriously. No. Don't do it. Don't even think about it.

*clears throat* Anyways, as I said, they are awesomely cute. This is already proven by some of the pics shown in this thread.

Sure, nature's a bastard and humans are cruel. But as i said, if it were up to me, there would be pandas everywhere.

Every.where. One could be right behind you, watching as you write your panda-hatemail-post. So I'd be careful if i were you, Mr./Mrs. Panda-hater.

 

[DTWolfwood]

not quite sure how they haven't gone extinct naturally. seriously, nothing about them makes any sense. slow birth rate, singular diet, solitary with giant home ranges. Pandas are a slap to Darwin's face (guess anything can exist if there isn't something to eat it or destroy their home)

But as it is our fault for causing their endangered status, it should then also be our responsibility to keep them alive or at least get them off the list as to let nature do its thing.

 

[Therumancer]

There has been a lot of money spent on keeping the Giant Panda on the Earth. Now it's likely that without humans on the planet, that they wouldn't be dying out, though they have been called an evolutionary cul-de-sac by several wildlife experts. So what i'm asking is could that money have been better spent on saving animals that can be helped?

I said "no". I say this because I actually think the Panda bear can be saved. Plenty of species of bear manage to survive and thrive fairly well in the wild despite the prescence of humans. I think the problem is the overpopulation of Asia in paticular, which doesn't quite allow for the preservation of habitats to the same extent as you see in the rest of the world.

That said, at the very least I believe we can store the eggs and sperm and repopulate them artificially at a later point.

All comments about the ecosystem and the "circle of life" and so on, there are species I think we coddle too much and probably shouldn't be saved, the Panda isn't one of them.

 

[Sanglyon]

The creature is just another victim of human development, which we now keep alive both out of guilt and so we can gawk at it. No wonder it's trying to die.

Are you still talking about panda, or about Amy Winehouse?

 

[KeyMaster45]

So we humans destroy their habitat... but it's their own fault? WTF is wrong with you people.

When I see this, first I like to quote Cracked.

But it concludes that, in this particular case, the best way to respect nature is by donating money to save panda bears from extinction -- despite the fact that nature has expressed in no uncertain terms that it wants pandas dead like yesterday.

Source: #8 in this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_19087_the-9-most-offensive-911-references-in-pop-culture.html#ixzz1JE4gA176]

Then I like to point them to #1 in this article. [http://www.cracked.com/article_16054_6-endangered-species-that-arent-endangered-enough_p2.html]

To quote it, since few will probably read it.

"Not the cuddly, wuddly panda!" you exclaim, possibly chewing on a gender-neutral flax-soy bar. Well guess what? The panda is nature's loser, an animal so far gone that it won't even have sex without the aid of several Chinese zookeepers. When a species' sole responsibility is to "get busy" and it still doesn't bother, then we, as people who have to go to goddamn work every day, lose sympathy.

So yeah, we need to just let the panda go the way of the dodos. We're only keeping it alive because we think it's cute, and because China makes a killing renting pandas out to zoos around the world.(yes China owns all the pandas and any panda you see outside of China is just a rental.)

 

[Russian_Assassin]

snip

You do know that a panda is a vicious animal that can disembowel you?

It's a bear! Even a small one may chop your arm off while playing with you! With this approach you have towards cute animals, I hope you NEVER EVER try to pet a Dingo.

[sub]It's basically a wolf, only from Australia, therefore a billion times more dangerous![/sub]​

 

[Slipped Mind]

I voted no. I love pandas. If you're willing to allow them to become extinct, you are clearly pure evil.

Just look at them ._.

 

[Sanglyon]

Pandas are a slap to Darwin's face (guess anything can exist if there isn't something to eat it or destroy their home)

Wait, what? "Anything can exist if there isn't something to eat it or destroy their home" is a slap to Darwin's face, why?

How does the existence of an animal without predators invalidate that those with predators only survive if they are fit to do so?

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

They have no interest in continuing their own species. Evolution says they should become extinct.

Let evolution speak for itself.

I don't think they should be let to go extinct, but Human's should be a bit smarted in the way they try to get them to procreate. In vitro fertilisation is a method that comes to mind, we impregnate enough Pandas through in vitro fertilisation, then in a few generations we start to slowly release them back into the wild. Of course when releasing them we would use controlled forests were civilian access is very limited, and we will slowly allow Pandas to go back into society.

Although, if they're not procreating in a natural habitat through no fault of any human, that would suggest they're a bit inferior and there fore becoming a large burden on humans. If it is abundantly clear that Pandas are behind on the evolutionary cycle or chain, then it is best (in my opinion) to allow nature to take its coarse.

PS I got the weird thought that, while we are debating if Pandas should live, imagine that there are some Alien overlords debating over our existence. Calling us futile, inferior, insignificant.

 

[Seneschal]

We are the dominant species, and I think we can show some responsibility.

Shit, we spend millions of dollars to find old lizard bones but we can't be bothered to save species that exist today?

The role of the dominant species does not come with bigger responsibilities. It's a measure of efficiency, not a rank or a position. By destroying the pandas' habitat, we've enabled other species to fill the niche (including ourselves). THAT is natural selection - a fragile system that cannot self-sustain being spontaneously replaced by a more robust and enduring one. And I totally agree with you that we should be better stewards, but in the end, we're not worried about natural order - we just want green pastures in our front yard and videos of happy pandas in the wild on our TV because it makes us feel all responsible and important. Doesn't make it any more natural than just ending the species.

Besides, how is extinction murder? No individual member of the species is suffering because of it, we're not infringing on their rights. And surely there's no such thing as a "right not to go extinct". That's about as unnatural as it gets.

Also, dinosaurs are more closely related to avians than reptiles. Like, really big birds.

 

[Canid117]

Should we let this go extinct

How could anyone

By remembering that it is a fucking Bear that would eat you if it wasn't so fat, slow and stupid.

 

[Baneat]

Are they rational beings

No. Move along to next question

Are they useful?

Yes?Save them

No? Do not

I don't know if they need to survive.. my guess is no.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Try watching some more Discovery Channel or reading a couple of National Geographic books, m'kay? There are in fact quite a few species that have some issues with their genitalia and the uses thereof because of human pollution. However, the panda one is one of the most pressing. Besides, it's harder to make people care about crocodiles than cute looking pandas.

Ok, so let's disrespect other people's opinions and call them trolls! My post wasn't some objective statement. It's my view on the subject. The OP asked me, I answered. Do we really need to say IN MY OPINION every time we speak (I think Moviebob covered this notion)?

And even if humans were the cause, how do you suggest we deal with this scenario? A couple of nature loving scientists won't do shit. The people in power couldn't give less of a fuck about some animals dying, as long as it doesn't affect their profit. And guess who runs the show on this god damn planet?

If people want to save earth, we must take the power back in our hands and then we can decide the fate of the earth. Simply yelling at the politicians to help save the earth isn't going to get you anywhere.

Alright, alright, geez... easy with the 'cruise control' will ya? (By the way, how can you deliberately use a trollface as an avatar and act all offended when I make a lil' joke about it?)

As for your other two paragraphs: no shit Sherlock. Money makes the world go round and you ain't getting nowhere if you're not willing to go over some dead bodies. Personally? I wouldn't know what you could do to 'save the earth'. Cleaning op oil spills at the beach? Become an environmentalist terrorist? You tell me. I just made an observant statement that human actions messed up a lot more things than many people would like to believe, that's it.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Cutting Costs: "Should we axe this species to save money?"

It's like someone going into a bar and saying: "Raise your hand if you are a convicted rapist."

This is so rhetorical I don't know what else to say...

But, obviously, IMO, no, we should not kill it, that would kind of defeat the purpose of protecting endangered species in the first place.

 

[Baneat]

Cutting Costs: "Should we axe this species to save money?"

It's like someone going into a bar and saying: "Raise your hand if you are a convicted rapist."

This is so rhetorical I don't know what else to say...

But, obviously, IMO, no, we should not kill it, that would kind of defeat the purpose of protecting endangered species in the first place.

Besides from preserving the ecosystem (or preventing bad consequence)

What exactly is the purpose of protecting endangered species?