Let Pandas Die Out.

[Carcharodon]

What, breeding too infrequently for their numbers to swell?

No, I'm pretty sure that's only something that came along once they evolved to have a piss-poor sex-drive.

It wouldn't be a problem if humans weren't destroying the place they evolved to live and survive in. That's my entire point.

Sharks have very few offspring, and they've been around for 350 million years. Now they're killed in large numbers (by humans, no less) and are struggling to cope with that unnaturally intense predation pressure.

Would you have the same attitude about them?

Evolution is a constant thing, this argument that you're bringing is as valid as saying that humanity doesn't destroy the world because our effect on the planet was minimal whilst we're technically the same species which several thousands of years ago hadn't even learned how to start a fire or use basic tools.

Humanity has evolved, humans will continue to evolve until we're all dead, pandas have evolved, as a result they'll die out from it.

Have we decimated the population over recent years? Yes. But they are going to die out and were on the downward slide as well.

Do you have any way to back up your claim that they were "on the downward slide?"

Money that we're sinking into clinging to giant pandas who are hanging over the precipice. They're a lost cause, we can't pull them back onto stable land, where they'll look after themselves, all we can do is stop them from falling into the abyss a fraction of a second earlier than they otherwise would.

The money, time and effort that we're sinking into the pandas would be better used saving A LARGE QUANTITY of other species which could be self-sustaining with a little help. Many species where we legitimately would likely be the major cause of their demise and not merely speeding it up. Surely we have more of a moral debt to these creatures than the pandas?

I'm not arguing against this.

 

[SuperFerret]

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, because of the fundamentally different ways we're looking at this. What you say is "actively destroying habitat", I say is merely changing said habitat. Habitats are continually changing and species that can't adapt to the changes die out, this does happen all the time. It's a constant process that is promoted by a number of factors. The influence of another species is one of those factors, and while most species cannot influence the landscape the way humans can, they can surely affect the ecosystem just as much by their presence.

 

[The Battousai]

The only animals that CAN adapt to the destruction that humans cause are almost exclusively pests. Does that mean we should applaud them?

 

[BlackLantern]

The only animals that CAN adapt to the destruction that humans cause are almost exclusively pests. Does that mean we should applaud them?

haha...Id like to see a giant statue of a cockroach put up somewhere....

do Pandas have natural predators or anything??

 

[SuperFerret]

The only animals that CAN adapt to the destruction that humans cause are almost exclusively pests. Does that mean we should applaud them?

"Pests" is a relative term, the animal equivalent of "weeds", and yes, we should applaud them. Especially considering that some pests are among the oldest species still around, namely rodents and crocodilians.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I hope we don't let them die out, because then they'll be touted as the "best animal ever" and we'll see unwarranted tributes to them for over a decade, just like Eazy-E.

 

[Kane52630]

I believe I speak for everyone when I say to hell with the WWF.

to quote a man who has no rules
Oh Hell Yeah!!!!!!

 

[TEDDY]

TEDDY can't live forever.


RIP.

Can so!

 

[Hound55]

haha...Id like to see a giant statue of a cockroach put up somewhere....

do Pandas have natural predators or anything??

No. Which is all the more stunning.

Even the ones we let live in the wild, albeit under conservationist supervision to protect them, even though they have no natural predators they still don't breed frequently enough to have their numbers swell these days.

 

[Carcharodon]

No. Which is all the more stunning.

Why? Actually, it makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. I see no reason for their reproductive mode and habits to be considered "stunning."

 

[Hound55]

No, I mean its stunning that they're dying out faster than they'll breed even without predators.

Obviously most species which have few natural predators eventually evolve to breed less so that they don't over-populate and wipe themselves out through starvation.

But in the pandas case its stunning because they're reproducing at such a low level that they'redying out... even with no natural predators. Even with conservationist help. They're naturally dying out.

 

[Carcharodon]

No, I mean its stunning that they're dying out faster than they'll breed even without predators.

Obviously most species which have few natural predators eventually evolve to breed less so that they don't over-populate and wipe themselves out through starvation.

Actually, given how quickly bamboo grows, I doubt that was the reason for that adaptation. There's a much simpler explanation involving energy budgeting. It has far less to do with long-term population management than it does with ensuring the survival of the few offspring they DO have.

This is explored in basic biology courses, even those taught in high school. It's one end of the spectrum of energy-budgeting strategies that animals employ in order to ensure the survival of their offspring and, as a result, their species.

But in the pandas case its stunning because they're reproducing at such a low level that they'redying out... even with no natural predators. Even with conservationist help. They're naturally dying out.

There's nothing natural about it. It's a simple matter of population dynamics: once a population of animals gets below a certain number, it becomes virtually impossible for them to recover. It's a simple concept, really. Their low fecundity certainly has an impact on what that number is (relatively high in comparison with other, more prolific animals), but it does nothing to explain how their numbers got there in the first place.

So this claim that they were already "on their way out" is preposterous, and I have yet to see you support it.

If you need any of these concepts explained further, I'll do it, but I can't guarantee I'll do it tonight. I might be too high by the time I get back to my computer.

 

[xwolverine2]

lol that guy is in some deep ****...

 

[Hound55]

So this claim that they were already "on their way out" is preposterous, and I have yet to see you support it.

Because that would require me to have stastics showing when panda population numbers first started to slide...

And as a species humanity hasn't been that interested in such things for a while so the best I could give would be estimates and hardly trustworthy as "fact".

Prior to 1976 any figure given to you would be at best an estimate, and the giant panda was already considered rare in Ancient China.

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.

Most statistical increases to the panda population, generally wind up being fudged statistics to support that the conservationist efforts have been having a more positive influence on their population than the reality.

 

[Hound55]

Actually, given how quickly bamboo grows, I doubt that was the reason for that adaptation. There's a much simpler explanation involving energy budgeting. It has far less to do with long-term population management than it does with ensuring the survival of the few offspring they DO have.

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...

 

[SuperFerret]

That happens in many other species as well.

 

[Hound55]

Those other species tend to not have any particular aversions to breeding, though.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm just saying that behaviours that may go contrary to survival are common in many species, pandas just seem to have a lot of them.

 

[Hound55]

I'm just saying that behaviours that may go contrary to survival are common in many species, pandas just seem to have a lot of them.

Absolutely yes, sir.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

This may be a silly question, but Panda's are just bad a getting jiggy with it, right? Why not just use artificial insemination?

 

[xwolverine2]

why not just clone them?

 

[Hound55]

Because pandas already have enough troubles with figuring out breeding and those bred in captivity have even more troubles with it. They're worried they might breed that knowledge out of existence.

That said, they are still artificially inseminating pandas.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Humans are superficial creatures. Pandas are cute and hence they must be saved. SAVE THE PANDA!!! Even though Nature herself is pulling the plug on them...

This is the next Dodo. Cute but too dumb to live. I'm not saying that we should entirely abandon their conservation just that some attention should also be given to other endangered species. And I don't mean the White Tiger. That species is a real life glitch

You can't force a species to survive and no amount of self hatred will fix it.

 

[BlackLantern]

pretty much...if pandas were covered in scales and smelled like baked ****, no one would care

 

[AnorexicBatman]

In the future. Cloning will get to a point where scientists will keep a collection of DNA samples from the CUTEST ANIMALS ON EARTH and people will pay good money to have them as pets.

A collection of MOT AWESOME ANIMALS ON EARTH is already being created. The database currently contains Velciraptor's and ferrets...