Let Pandas Die Out.

[The Battousai]

I almost thought you were being serious, but then I remembered that this is the internet

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Marx

Pandas are beautiful animals...if we can preserve them and save them, we should.

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Hound55

There's also quite a few behavioural aspects of the panda which fly in the face of ensuring the survival of the few offspring they do have as welll...

Like? You keep making these assertions, but you can never provide meaningful examples. Are you sure you're not just parroting what SF is saying?

(By the way, SF, you've made the claim as well, and I'd love to hear your explanation).

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Hound55

So no, I can't provide evidence to support what I'm saying, but it also means that you can't provide evidence that their populations WEREN'T on the decline prior to human influence, and knowing what we know about the giant panda I do honestly believe that what I'm saying was considerably more likely.

You're the one that has asserted that they were already on the decline; that means the burden of evidence is on you. I've made no claim one way or the other.

You should probably stop making assertive claims if you have no way of backing them up.

[Hound55]

Like their child neglecting behavioural patterns that SuperFerret mentioned on the second page.

[Hound55]

Originally Posted by Carcharodon

You're the one that has asserted that they were already on the decline; that means the burden of evidence is on you. I've made no claim one way or the other.

You should probably stop making assertive claims if you have no way of backing them up.

And I'm not saying you have to bring evidence.

I'm just saying that its more likely knowing what we know about pandas.

[Hound55]

Originally Posted by Carcharodon

Are you sure you're not just parroting what SF is saying?

(By the way, SF, you've made the claim as well, and I'd love to hear your explanation).

I'm not parroting anything that SuperFerret is saying (short of the child neglectful behaviours... which was only because SuperFerret mentioned them first) everything I've said here I've already said previously in another medium.

Hence the links earlier in the thread.

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Hound55

I'm just saying that its more likely knowing what we know about pandas.

I completely disagree.

[Hound55]

Originally Posted by Carcharodon

I completely disagree.

And that's fine. Because so far there's no evidence to disprove either one of us.

[BlackLantern]

if the panda does not have the skills necessary to survive on its own in the wild (human interference not withstanding) why allow them to survive??

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by Hound55

Like their child neglecting behavioural patterns that SuperFerret mentioned on the second page.

It all goes back to energy-budgeting. Caring for one offspring means a better chance of survival for that single offspring than the TWO would have if cared for simultaneously. Again, this is a very basic biological concept.

But seriously, if these habits and behaviors are so detrimental to their survival, how did they speciate and then form a population stable enough to carry them through all these years? If these habits are such a hindrance to survival, I fail to see how or why that could have happened.

Given the amount of poaching and habitat destruction that has gone on around the pandas, I think it's naive to assume that they were somehow already on the decline, based simply on observed behaviors that, at some point, helped forge an entire population.

That's why your argument doesn't make sense. And the so-called "child-neglecting" behavior of the pandas is actually a survival strategy, one that falls directly in line with what I mentioned before.

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

if the panda does not have the skills necessary to survive on its own in the wild (human interference not withstanding) why allow them to survive??

It's a doomed cause, but not for the reasons Hound and SF are asserting. Their populations have simply reached a point where any hope of recovery given their low fecundity is virtually nill. It's silly to hope that captive-breeding programs will help recover their populations, because that will take a LONG, long time, and the fact that they're in captivity doesn't actually help the whole process (other than the fact that the odds of simply having a male and female together are much better in captivity).

EDIT: One thing I'd like to clarify: SF's argument is valid in that these habits of pandas make it more difficult for them to adapt to rapid environmental change. That is 100% true. If a natural predator of pandas were to evolve, for example, there's a good chance they could be wiped out (and the predator would follow). However, it's the notion that these traits were already sending them on a decline in population size prior to human impact I take issue with. There's NO reason to believe that, though I don't quite think that was exactly SF's claim.

[Danalys]

they could take all the pandas from all the zoos and make a panda park. at least then the pandas can find pandas they find more attractive.

[Cunning Stunts]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

if the panda does not have the skills necessary to survive on its own in the wild (human interference not withstanding) why allow them to survive??

Because as the dominant and most powerful species on the planet, I think we have a responsibility to at least make an attempt at aiding the survival of other beings/species.

[StrainedEyes]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

Because as the dominant and most powerful species on the planet, I think we have a responsibility to at least make an attempt at aiding the survival of other beings/species.

Isn't that what we have been doing? Is it working?

[Cunning Stunts]

Originally Posted by Geo7877

Isn't that what we have been doing? Is it working?

Did I say we haven't?

[SuperFerret]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

Because as the dominant and most powerful species on the planet, I think we have a responsibility to at least make an attempt at aiding the survival of other beings/species.

Which is why we should divert the disproportionate amount of funding pandas get towards other species that can benefit more. Pandas are on their way out and there's nothing we can do about it.

[POWdER-man]

I remember playing Zoo tycoon once and those damn pandas were never happy no matter what I did for them. Damn ****ers kept dying off. I just think the game programmers put them in just to mess with people.

[Cunning Stunts]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

Which is why we should divert the disproportionate amount of funding pandas get towards other species that can benefit more. Pandas are on their way out and there's nothing we can do about it.

I don't disagree, but giving up totally I do disagree with.

[SuperFerret]

Nevermind.

[TEDDY]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

You're right, ladies: animals ARE awesome!

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I see what you did there.

[Majic Walrus]

Originally Posted by The Battousai

I almost thought you were being serious, but then I remembered that this is the internet

Sig'd!

[claydogg]

Originally Posted by E-Man

"Hey you. Panda bear! We don't take kindly to your types around here!"

now skeeter.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

Because as the dominant and most powerful species on the planet, I think we have a responsibility to at least make an attempt at aiding the survival of other beings/species.

This is ********. If Water buffalo were the dominant species on the planet, would they try to save us? No. Ridiculous argument here.