Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[WolfEdge]

omnomnom

I'm sorry, I had a hard time writing a response without resorting to the same insult throwing like you.
Since my first response was probably going to get my account suspended, I thought I'd rewrite it.

Also, your patronizing "you don't know what this means" is funny. You are completely clueless about Ecology and Evolution, you invent facts to fit your ideas,...


I'm done with arguing with your neo-con BS, but let me end at saying that panda's aren't to blame for their natural habitat being destroyed. No animal can adapt to a completely other environment over night, these things take thousands of years to perfect.
And you probably don't realize this, but the current human-induced extinction rate is much higher than the normal natural background extinction rate. We're not just talking about cute cuddly panda's here.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Neoconservatism

Now that I got THAT outta my system...

Of course pandas aren't to blame. Just like the dinosaurs weren't to blame, just like ANY extinct species wasn't to blame, just like humans won't be to blame when some errant asteroid wipes us out. But those animals are still extinct, and I don't think you've given me a single reason to shed a goddamn tear. Indeed, all you've ACTUALLY done is spout the word "facts" over and over again.

Well, that, and call me a neoconservative and a fascist, things that happen to exist on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and both of which seem to deal with things that decidedly are NOT about how biology works, but who's keeping score...

For all your talk of "you don't understand THIS aspect of biology" and "you just don't get THAT idea of evolution", you haven't actually given me any reason as to WHY I am these things, or WHY your position is superior to mine, or WHY I should give a fuck that a species of animal is dying out due to the actions of humans. You keep spouting WORDS, but I'm not actually seeing anything of substance to sway my opinion, just incensed gibberish, extrapolation of my point to suit YOUR needs, and the occasional hot-button buzzword thrown in for good measure.

I'm going to say it one more time, as I still have access to your original deleted post, all animals are in competition for resources at some level. You keep bringing up lions and tigers, and I'm telling you that they BOTH are in direct competition with their own PREY. Humans and pandas, then, are in direct competition for control and dominance of the panda's natural habitat and resources. It's a fight the panda has already lost, and the remainder are kept alive solely at the expense of human resources, not because of some pressing need to do so, but out of guilt and a bizarre brand of selfishness, a trait wholly unique to the human race, and one that would not find reciprocation were the situation reversed.

But, you say I "invented facts" to suit my ideas, but which facts? What are you talking about? Please quote them for me, so that I may learn and be freed from my ignorant ways, O' ye, speaker and diviner of truths.

 

[Riku'sTwilight]

more snipsnip

It's funny how people keep commenting like Nature is an actual, living thing, has a plan, etc,. then just being a set of laws earthly creatures happen to follow.

Also, I wouldn't consider humans hunting a species to extinction to be 'natural', in the sense that it really serves no ecological or biological purpose. Then "Nature", so to speak, wouldn't be making these eagles extinct. Humans would be.
Same as Panda's, and I'm sure they're not the only species to go extinct if we keep destroying their habitat.

Well 'Nature' does have a way of balancing things out, regardless of whether we believe in an actual living thing akin to a Gaia planet, or just a more scientific nature. It is a regulatory system.
Weather for example is a regulatory system, which is a law unto itself, yet always purposeful.

I'd agree in hunting a species to extinction to lack purpose in the grand scheme of things, but we're not doing that to Panda's, they're just not breeding through natural means.
It would be like if human's stopped having sex and the only way we could conceive was through medical services.

Just because we have the ability to save animals, doesn't mean we should.
If we maintain that mentality, then we're going to save every creature on this planet, using resources, and spending money which we just wont have 30, 40, 50 years down the line from now.

We, safe humans forget that nature is one harsh b***h and it is literally a dog eat dog world out there in the wild. If a prey gets slaughtered, we see that as natural, normal yet a species becoming extinct? Inhumane. Why? Because we're more eco-friendly now than we were 50-100 years ago. At no great help to the world either.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

more snipsnip

It's funny how people keep commenting like Nature is an actual, living thing, has a plan, etc,. then just being a set of laws earthly creatures happen to follow.

Also, I wouldn't consider humans hunting a species to extinction to be 'natural', in the sense that it really serves no ecological or biological purpose. Then "Nature", so to speak, wouldn't be making these eagles extinct. Humans would be.
Same as Panda's, and I'm sure they're not the only species to go extinct if we keep destroying their habitat.

Well 'Nature' does have a way of balancing things out, regardless of whether we believe in an actual living thing akin to a Gaia planet, or just a more scientific nature. It is a regulatory system.
Weather for example is a regulatory system, which is a law unto itself, yet always purposeful.

I'd agree in hunting a species to extinction to lack purpose in the grand scheme of things, but we're not doing that to Panda's, they're just not breeding through natural means.
It would be like if human's stopped having sex and the only way we could conceive was through medical services.

Just because we have the ability to save animals, doesn't mean we should.
If we maintain that mentality, then we're going to save every creature on this planet, using resources, and spending money which we just wont have 30, 40, 50 years down the line from now.

We, safe humans forget that nature is one harsh b***h and it is literally a dog eat dog world out there in the wild. If a prey gets slaughtered, we see that as natural, normal yet a species becoming extinct? Inhumane. Why? Because we're more eco-friendly now than we were 50-100 years ago. At no great help to the world either.

Okay, I think I got the idea by now. Panda's still haven't invented porn. Maybe we can share ?

Fact is, panda's were doing just fine in their rainforests before we started cutting them down en masse. And I'm not just talking panda's here.
Fair is fair, we humans ARE pretty cool animals. Even before the Homo Sapiens, 'we' were good at outperforming others. We even ended up outperforming our other human species, the Neanderthals (or it was luck, or the neanderthals actually integrated into the Homo Sapiens, or... studies are really vague).
So yeah, extinction rate is higher than normal.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, WE ARE KILLING OFF MORE SPECIES THAN NEW ONES ARE BORN.
By 2050, the earth will have 30% less species living in it. That is just 40 years. Even considering that scientists like to overreact from time to time, every estimate suggest that the current extinction rate is unsustainable. We have to do something (or preferably, stop doing a lot of things)...

Did you know FRICKING BEES are dieing out? That's right, bees. We turn giant tracks of land into mono-culture, forgetting bees live on wild flowers. We happily use pesticides on everything, forgetting that they kill more than we wanted.
Last year, the amount of bee colonies in the US dropped by 34%. They're apparently weakend by pesticides, and die during the winter.
We humans might cause bees to die out, because of our pesticide.

Also, just to point out, compare the % of taxes your country spends on Nature, and the % it spends on letting supposed enemies and your own countrymen die in futile wars with highly intelligent bombs that'll just miss and hit a hospital 2 miles off target.
I know what I'd find more important (Speaking as a member of a very pacifist country, so oppinions may be different as usual).

 

[Nurb]

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

Humans are not exempt from evolution or natural selection; species need to be able to adapt to changes and humans are a big change... thankfully we've got the intelligence to be aware of our impact, but sinking so much money into a species that is unable to adapt because of its incridibly low birthrates is a waste of resources that could go to other species. Nature is making its selection pretty damn insistantly.

Of course if the backwater Asian cultures had the privilage of an education, they'd be smart enough to know magic doesn't exist and killing rare animals for magic or bullshit old medicine myths and could work to preserve their habitat on a local level. Sadly, dumb hicks exist beyond white America.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

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

Humans are not exempt from evolution or natural selection; species need to be able to adapt to changes and humans are a big change... thankfully we've got the intelligence to be aware of our impact, but sinking so much money into a species that is unable to adapt because of its incridibly low birthrates is a waste of resources that could go to other species. Nature is making its selection pretty damn insistantly.

Of course if the backwater Asian cultures had the privilage of an education, they'd be smart enough to know magic doesn't exist and killing rare animals for magic or bullshit old medicine myths and could work to preserve their habitat on a local level. Sadly, dumb hicks exist beyond white America.

I'm sorry, are you a racist by any chance?

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

"Backwater cultures"
Race is not culture. Chinese medicine is cultural. And (seems) fucking idiotic.

Sorry, I misread your post. You said dumb hicks exist beyond white America, for a moment I thought you meant everybody but white Americans are dumb hicks >.>

Anyhow, it's not like the West isn't happily being furs from poached animals, or their meat. OR other accessories like tusks for ivory.

You can call another culture weird and idiotic for being different, but that's another discussion.

 

[Nurb]

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

Humans are not exempt from evolution or natural selection; species need to be able to adapt to changes and humans are a big change... thankfully we've got the intelligence to be aware of our impact, but sinking so much money into a species that is unable to adapt because of its incridibly low birthrates is a waste of resources that could go to other species. Nature is making its selection pretty damn insistantly.

Of course if the backwater Asian cultures had the privilage of an education, they'd be smart enough to know magic doesn't exist and killing rare animals for magic or bullshit old medicine myths and could work to preserve their habitat on a local level. Sadly, dumb hicks exist beyond white America.

I'm sorry, are you a racist by any chance?

I'm sorry, did you not know "backwater" means a far, out of the way area where stupid people usually occupy it? Such as idiots who think magic is real and hack up tigers and other rare animals for mystic powders, or those stupid witch doctors in Africa who hack up albinos to use them in potions.

Stupid rural hicks aren't limited to white christian America so stop jumping to conclusions like one

 

[Voration]

The same argument could be applied to most endangered species. If we start leting the 'popular' endangered animals die out, then the less popular animals are screwed.

Everything has its place in the ecosystem and humans are messing it all up, if we don't work to prevent the loss of the worlds biodiversity then we are only the engineers of the destruction of our world

 

[LCP]

Let them go extinct, adapt or die.

I'm a cold realist

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

I already admitted I was wrong 4 posts above. Being a condescending arrogant ass in an offtopic way is unneed

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

Humans are not exempt from evolution or natural selection; species need to be able to adapt to changes and humans are a big change... thankfully we've got the intelligence to be aware of our impact, but sinking so much money into a species that is unable to adapt because of its incridibly low birthrates is a waste of resources that could go to other species. Nature is making its selection pretty damn insistantly.

Of course if the backwater Asian cultures had the privilage of an education, they'd be smart enough to know magic doesn't exist and killing rare animals for magic or bullshit old medicine myths and could work to preserve their habitat on a local level. Sadly, dumb hicks exist beyond white America.

I'm sorry, are you a racist by any chance?

I'm sorry, did you not know "backwater" means a far, out of the way area where stupid people usually occupy it? Such as idiots who think magic is real and hack up tigers and other rare animals for mystic powders, or those stupid witch doctors in Africa who hack up albinos to use them in potions.

Stupid rural hicks aren't limited to white christian America so stop jumping to conclusions like one

I already admitted I was wrong 4 posts above. I know what the words mean, I merely thought you were implying something else.
If you have to throw insults, at least make sure you read more than your own post, please.

 

[fates_puppet13]

well its our fault they are close to extinction
so i think we should considering we were murdering the poor buggers

if this was a natural thing i'de have to say with a pinch of salt that we shouldn't interviene

 

[Nurb]

I already admitted I was wrong 4 posts above. Being a condescending arrogant ass in an offtopic way is unneed

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

Humans are not exempt from evolution or natural selection; species need to be able to adapt to changes and humans are a big change... thankfully we've got the intelligence to be aware of our impact, but sinking so much money into a species that is unable to adapt because of its incridibly low birthrates is a waste of resources that could go to other species. Nature is making its selection pretty damn insistantly.

Of course if the backwater Asian cultures had the privilage of an education, they'd be smart enough to know magic doesn't exist and killing rare animals for magic or bullshit old medicine myths and could work to preserve their habitat on a local level. Sadly, dumb hicks exist beyond white America.

I'm sorry, are you a racist by any chance?

I'm sorry, did you not know "backwater" means a far, out of the way area where stupid people usually occupy it? Such as idiots who think magic is real and hack up tigers and other rare animals for mystic powders, or those stupid witch doctors in Africa who hack up albinos to use them in potions.

Stupid rural hicks aren't limited to white christian America so stop jumping to conclusions like one

I already admitted I was wrong 4 posts above. I know what the words mean, I merely thought you were implying something else.
If you have to throw insults, at least make sure you read more than your own post, please.

I was replying to what you said, not reading others below, and if you weren't implying -I- was implying racism then I wouldn't be throwing back insults.

Also; the west uses fur, hide, and meat from replenishable food sources and trade and purchase of Ivory or certain extremely endangered species is illegal in all western nations

 

[bit_crusherrr]

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?

You know panda's are stupid right? They aren't meant to live purely off bamboo, they are meant to eat meat.

 

[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.

Sorry I shouldn't have skipped a step. Kantians believe in the sovereignty of reason, it's the only important thing about people. If a pig started to have choices and could hold an argument, it would be worth more than a human who cannot. Pandas have no ability to reason ergo, through the inverse of valuing reason, you can only value what they do as a tool.

Humans do have reason, so yes I have a problem with it, and your example changes my argument in no way whatsoever.

So as long as it's evolved past a certain checkpoint, we should stop deciding whether or not we should slaughter and eat them en masse or whether we simply don't care? Sorry, not trying to spark a debate, but it's always been kind of a bland argument.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry I shouldn't have skipped a step. Kantians believe in the sovereignty of reason, it's the only important thing about people. If a pig started to have choices and could hold an argument, it would be worth more than a human who cannot. Pandas have no ability to reason ergo, through the inverse of valuing reason, you can only value what they do as a tool.

Humans do have reason, so yes I have a problem with it, and your example changes my argument in no way whatsoever.

So as long as it's evolved past a certain checkpoint, we should stop deciding whether or not we should slaughter and eat them en masse or whether we simply don't care? Sorry, not trying to spark a debate, but it's always been kind of a bland argument.

Yes, that is my view. The sovereignty of liberty is an assertion, based on consequences of it, but unless you have the answer to meta-ethics, it's an impasse.

 

[Tomo Stryker]

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

Wait, wait, wait, since when did the "Survival of the Fittest" ever stop being applied? If it couldn't defend itself in the first place then its exactly where it belong in the food chain. Besides you wouldn't be whining if it looked like a hairy spider that ate its own weight in flesh now would you? Thought not.