Pandas are damn stupid animals that should've been wiped out a long time ago. But they're not, so we'd best not let the efforts go to waste.
Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?
- Thread starter rdaleric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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
How about spending the money used on keeping them alive on helping our own race. We've got enough problems as it is. When we solve them, sure, spend as much as you want on keeping endangered species alive but as it stands, it's just plain immoral.
Answer: No and you're a terrible person.
Look into that face and consider how you can actually think that.
Look into that face and consider how you can actually think that.
I don't see why not, they're a rather dumb species and they really don't do all that much positive.
I'm in total agreement, the only reason people even care is because Panda's are cute. If they weren't, everyone would've given up on them by now.Bayushi_Kouya said:
Yes, let them die out.
They are extremely picky about mating.
They only take care of one of their young. (they let the other one starve)
They are a bear/raccoon than pretty much only eats bamboo. (and a ton of it)
They require a ton of space as territory.
They need a very specialized and dieing out habitat to survive.
Clearly they want to die out, so let them.
They are extremely picky about mating.
They only take care of one of their young. (they let the other one starve)
They are a bear/raccoon than pretty much only eats bamboo. (and a ton of it)
They require a ton of space as territory.
They need a very specialized and dieing out habitat to survive.
Clearly they want to die out, so let them.
Yes, it is.TheBelgianGuy said:
This may be difficult for you to accept, but humanity as a naturally occurring species is one that adapts the environment, rather than adapting TO the environment, to suit its needs. So, as it is the purview of other species to adapt themselves, who is actually failing at their job if a species of animal can't keep up? To put this another way, if a species of wolf migrates into a new area and wipes out all the deer, then whose fault is it the deer are gone? Or more importantly, who cares?
You're trying to apply a sense of right and wrong to a phenomenon that bucks notions of morality. In order for one form of life to live/thrive, another one is going to die out. That's nature for you. Sorry if it's not the cutesy song and dance utopia that Disney brought you to believe.
Nah, too cute. "Fuck nature" - that's the way of science (and all people that want to forge their own fate) after all.
Besides, there are way bigger money wasters out there, I don't see why we should start here.
Besides, there are way bigger money wasters out there, I don't see why we should start here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eqUtK61SOs
This is all I have to say.
EDIT: Oh, someone already posted this.
This is all I have to say.
EDIT: Oh, someone already posted this.
Yes. We are stopping natural selection by letting them live, Humans aren't the ones who are killing them. They are cute, true, but hon there ain't no thing as survival of the cutest.
Their only positive evolution trait is being adorable. They won't copulate to save their species, and only massive amounts of cuteness motivated human intervention keep them from extinction.
For god sake if you met one in a forest going up for a cuddle would be just as safe as running away.
For god sake if you met one in a forest going up for a cuddle would be just as safe as running away.
human intervention with all animals should stop, i think, livestock included. i know this isn't a terribly popular opinion with the american "bacon on everything" crowd, but with so many easy plant-based substitutes for animal products, there is simply no longer a practical reason to continue the life cycle of any animal that isn't productive in its own environment or no longer has one outside of human captivity. sad for the pandas and any other animal that falls under this category, but 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are extinct. the way of the world is adapt or die, and humans interfere with that and cause problems with the environment and the economy. just let it die if it has no more purpose to its existence.
also, on the same note, start using DDT again. this malaria thing has really gotten out of hand...
also, on the same note, start using DDT again. this malaria thing has really gotten out of hand...
Heartless though it may sound, I voted yes. They're dying out because they have long complicated mating rituals that we still don't understand fully, which is why they won't breed in captivity. And, well, they're kind of pointless in the wild. The only thing they do is eat bamboo. Thats it. Its such an ineffective diet that's all they can do
Pandas are goddamn awesome. If we don't save them, them what will fill the resulting void of awesomeness? Ostriches? Koi fish? Steven Seagal!?
I think this issue needs a little more explanation than the OP provided:
Basically, there's a rising belief among ecologists that the Giant Panda would have died out by now anyway, even without human intervention. The argument is that as a species, the Giant Panda has pretty much been fucked by evolution: it eats one type of food, lives in one climate/ geographic region, and reproduces too slowly. And by spending so much money on keeping it alive, groups are wasting money that would be much better spent on other species, which have a greater chance, as well as its another case of 'Bambification': the trend for cute animals to get more attention by the public, regardless of their importance to the ecosystem, which is ultimately harmful to conservation efforts.
So thats the argument for letting it die of. Now, obviously, its up to individual people to read up on the issue themselves, and decide if a)they think those theories have enough evidence and b)if, regardless, it would be moral to let a species die.
Hope I helped
Basically, there's a rising belief among ecologists that the Giant Panda would have died out by now anyway, even without human intervention. The argument is that as a species, the Giant Panda has pretty much been fucked by evolution: it eats one type of food, lives in one climate/ geographic region, and reproduces too slowly. And by spending so much money on keeping it alive, groups are wasting money that would be much better spent on other species, which have a greater chance, as well as its another case of 'Bambification': the trend for cute animals to get more attention by the public, regardless of their importance to the ecosystem, which is ultimately harmful to conservation efforts.
So thats the argument for letting it die of. Now, obviously, its up to individual people to read up on the issue themselves, and decide if a)they think those theories have enough evidence and b)if, regardless, it would be moral to let a species die.
Hope I helped
No .. of course we shouldn't endorse the extinction of a species that does not mean us harm. Unless you can definitively prove that all panda, everywhere, have weapons and are planning to use them ... why would I recognise them as something 'Not worth our time and effort to help"?rdaleric said:
Are you fucking insane? You're talking about the systematic elimination of organisms simply because 'we couldn't be stuffed to help them'.
What if I turned around and said "You know, Americans are consuming far too much and they have zero ability to pay back their debts ... they're nationalistic and far too violent to accept they are no longer a superpower ... how about if we chemically neuter every American citizen and then wipe out any settlers that make landfall upon US soil?"
Afterall .. it costs way too much money to keep America afloat ... and the rest of the world is footing the bill.
They are in a social and economic cul-de-sac .... not likely to progress out of jingoistic concepts of civil governance and duty .... no ... let's just neuter them and be done with it in 30 years ^_^
Afterall ... instead of the continual loaning of money to the US, and supporting the facade of the petrodollar, a whole lot developing countries would have their qualit of life sharply improved.
