Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[Owlslayer]

snip

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

Well, that dingo sure looks cute. And do i really NEED an arm? I've got two of them, you know...
But yeah, i know they're dangerous, no wild animal is all cuddly etc. But still. They LOOK damn cute. If i had god-like powers, I'd save all cute animals if they were endangered. But i don't. Which is quite bad.

Though i would like to know if pandas would survive if humans never existed. I mean, if they wouldn't even then, then i suppose it's fair play...
And how much money are we talking about being spent on pandas? I'm sure there are loads of other such programs for saving other animals. Just wondering if the panda programs are a lot more expensive.

 

[Rex Fallout]

I'd say no we shouldn't but the chinese government doesnt do much in terms of 'helping the enviorment.' Plus they wouldnt let me in their country cuz I'd immediatly run into the streets screaming, "DEMOCRACY! DEMOCRACY!" until some chinese guy who knew english came over and said, "Uh dude no one understands you." And then I'd be like, "Oh sorry, whats, the chinese word for democracy?" Then he'd tell me and I'd run into the street yelling that and be shot by the PLA, and the man who talked to me would have to be shot to, (cuz he's a danger to country, telling foreigners what the word for democracy is in chinese) and then there would be this whole international thing where the US did nothing because in the end the government really doesnt give a flying flip about the people. Obama would be like, "Sorry Mr. Jintao, wont let it happen again."

I seem to have strayed from the topic. I cant really vote however, where is the, 'the chinese government is the one that will probably kill it anyways' button? Eh I'll just push no cuz its not as depressing.

 

[Kenny Kondom]

An animal that wont get their leg over for the sake of their own continued existance is pretty much the biggest (and at the same time, lamest) winner of the Darwin awards for certain. Who in their right mind says no to getting laid???

 

[Grickit]

No we shouldn't let them die out. But only because they're neat. If it was some silly think like the Tasmanian watcha-ma-call it, then yeah: let nature take its course.

Animals that are okay to waste billions on keeping around if they ever get to that point:
Panda
Okapi
Pangolin
Red Panda
Spider Monkey
Squids of any kind

 

[Ledan]

We've messed enough with the ecosystem. Things becoming extinct is a part of nature, a harsh one, but an integral part of it. We shouldn't go out of our way to save a species that can no longer survive in a natural environment that no longer exists.
And although we destroy many animal habitats, we also create new ones when we adapt the environment. Crows are a good example, as well as pigeons.

 

[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.

Besides from preserving the ecosystem (or preventing bad consequence)

What exactly is the purpose of protecting endangered species?

A legitimate question, how rare

I looked around for something that might answer that well and found this:

http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm

 

[Rainforce]

It's always good to help others, but considering their requirements for their enviroment they're pretty much lost. Too specialized and too generally ineffective.
So I think it's time to stop the metaphorical heart-lung machine.

 

[zombie711]

But there so cute, and who would repersent WWF?

 

[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?

A legitimate question, how rare

I looked around for something that might answer that well and found this:

http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm

Sorry but none of that source is applicable to pandas, apart from aesthetic, but I don't consider "they look nice" to even come close to a sufficient reason.

So I've taken the kantian response, let's go utilitarian(JS Mill version). Let's spend all the money that would have saved pandas on saving people. Bam,

No sufficient reason has been given so far for this specific circumstance.

I'm considering animals' necessity to live on a species by species basis.

 

[Hlain]

I looked around for something that might answer that well and found this:
http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm

Oh my god, the design alone of that website made me want to strangle a panda...

It all depends on costs and success. That is, if we spend a reasonable amount and the pandas start breeding, it's all good.
But spending boatloads of money, preserving 5 bears who don't want to mate...

 

[Shycte]

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.

Uno) Yes, but we don't need to be assholes about it. While your logic works and all that, I think it is UTTERLY POINTLESS to talk about natural selection when we as humans have places ourselfs above it. We can decide what species who'll live and who'll not. Besides, exactly what do we gain by destroying the Pandas habiat that couldn't be gotten anywhere else? I feel like people are stepping and, killing everything, crossing their arms and just saying "Well, that natural selection for you, they weren't strong enough to handle our heavy machinery"

Dos) "No individual member of the species is suffering because of it", I might be missunderstanding you, but I'm pretty sure that every single individual of that species will suffer if they go extinct, because it means that they all all. But I might be wrong, maybe death isn't a problem.

Spoiler: Tres

Seriously though, you learn something new every day I guess.

 

[Reed Spacer]

I say go after sloths.

Seriously, why would nature create something that can be outrun by a snail?

 

[Iwana Humpalot]

Nah, we owe it to those fluffy bastards to keep them alive.

 

[ThreeWords]

I object to the phrasing of the question. We shouldn't really be 'letting' them, since what should really be doing is leaving well alone. However, now that we've already screwed them over, the debate becomes similar to "should we leave the life-support plugged in?". They'll pass away either way, it's just a matter of exactly how much time and money we spend on it.

At this point, it would be better to let them go, I feel, since there are better things to spend our effort on that keeping a particular species of bear from falling the very last bit of the way into extinction. And to be fair, they're bears. We're hardly running out of bears.

 

[Chrinik]

Oh, they don´t wanna fuck in the nice cages we put them in. Well fuck that, they might as well go extinct...

Serriously, we ripped them out of where they belong and now we complain they don´t act the way WE want them too?

How much is humanity willing to screw around with nature, how ignorant are you people...

But, keeping in mind that there are THOUSANDS of species dying out as we speak, most of them probably not even discovered, we just care about the giant panda because we put them in zoos and they are fluffy. They don´t need a sex-life, fertilize some friggin eggs with semen and bingo, instant panda-cub.
You know, like they do with EVERY farmanimal that ever existed anywhere?

 

[JoeThree]

I picked "Yes" because they serve us no purpose outside of being cute. Now, to that end, I have no objection to some private individual investing his or her money to keep some as personal pets or exhibits, I just don't think it's something that we as a collective should care about.

 

[DTWolfwood]

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?

If they are fit to do so than so they should exist. However, can something not exist which precludes an environment that is hazardous to them? if there are no hazards, they can exist, is it not logical to think that? It doesn't invalidate them.

Pandas are a niche animal. If their niche is taken away, they shouldn't exist anymore. So their continued existence is whats strange not that they existed at all (probably should have been more clear, but this is the internet, if you don't clarify everything with a 12 page thesis statement some one is going to find fault in what you type regardless.)

In hindsight, i should have said slap to Darwin's Theories rather than slap to Darwin himself as he would most certainly approve of humans doing everything in their power to ensure the survival of a specie.

p.s. you probably should refrain from out of context partial quoting in the future.

 

[Seneschal]

sneeeep

Uno) Yes, but we don't need to be assholes about it. While your logic works and all that, I think it is UTTERLY POINTLESS to talk about natural selection when we as humans have places ourselfs above it. We can decide what species who'll live and who'll not. Besides, exactly what do we gain by destroying the Pandas habiat that couldn't be gotten anywhere else? I feel like people are stepping and, killing everything, crossing their arms and just saying "Well, that natural selection for you, they weren't strong enough to handle our heavy machinery"

Dos) "No individual member of the species is suffering because of it", I might be missunderstanding you, but I'm pretty sure that every single individual of that species will suffer if they go extinct, because it means that they all all. But I might be wrong, maybe death isn't a problem.

Spoiler: Tres

Seriously though, you learn something new every day I guess.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to be an asshole. I'm just saying that we're judging environmental damage by our own standards like we're some high-and-mighty objective authority on it, when we're actually just trying to save pandas because they're iconic and appealing. If some other species, maybe multitudes of insect species, found a home in the panda-ridden environments, are we now to evict them because the cute cuddly neutered bear needs an abnormally large territory to live in? The panda just seems more of a PR stunt than a true environmental emergency.

And no, I don't think extinction is a big threat to anything, not as far as natural order is concerned. It has happened billions of times with no ill intent to species orders of magnitude more influential and important than the panda. Do we judge cretaceous synapsids for brutally outmatching dinosaurs after the K-T event? After all, dinosaurs were cool and iconic.

 

[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.

Besides from preserving the ecosystem (or preventing bad consequence)

What exactly is the purpose of protecting endangered species?

A legitimate question, how rare

I looked around for something that might answer that well and found this:

http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm

Sorry but none of that source is applicable to pandas, apart from aesthetic, but I don't consider "they look nice" to even come close to a sufficient reason.

So I've taken the kantian response, let's go utilitarian(JS Mill version). Let's spend all the money that would have saved pandas on saving people. Bam,

No sufficient reason has been given so far for this specific circumstance.

I'm considering animals' necessity to live on a species by species basis.

I'm not really surprised that wasn't good for you...

Well, say for example a vast highly-evolved race of space-traveling beings took notice of Earth and realized humans were leading themselves to destruction but because humans had nothing to contribute to their society, they decide not to do anything and let us bring our own eventual downfall.

If that doesn't affect your argument in any way, then I've got nothing else to say.