Let Pandas Die Out.

[SuperFerret]

It's funny, I just posted a rant about this on my brand new blog yesterday. *plug plug*

But seriously, I did a little research, and it honestly seems that pandas are exceptionally skilled at walking towards extinction. I'll just copy and paste my argument because I is lazy.

This brings me (finally) to pandas, which are yet another species that I expect to be dead before I am. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if pandas went extinct before my children are born. That's kind of depressing, but truth be told, I doubt there's anything we can do about it. Facts are, the pandas are doomed, and they've been doomed from the get-go. Sure, their habitat has been destroyed by humans, and they've been hunted and poached since ancient times. Pollution has a hand in their decline, and the fact that they live in China (not a great place for humans, let alone animals) doesn't help.

But my point goes further, I think that pandas were destined for extinction even if there was no human interference. This isn't like how any other species will become extinct, all will eventually, but pandas seem especially skilled at extinction. This isn't some silly theory of mine either, the facts back it up.Pandas have a low birth rate, and are only fertile for about a third to half their 30 year lifespan. Add to this their apparent refusal to mate in captivity, and their habit of only caring for one infant at a time. This means that they abandon one infant to die if they give birth to twins, and as nature has had it for millions of years, not all infants make it to adulthood and less are able to mate.

What else? Well, lets see, pandas eat bamboo primarily. Not so bad, right? Let's consider that they're bears (and they are), and bears as a rule tend to be carnivores. Yes, bears supplement their diet with vegetation, but mostly they eat meat. Pandas are different, their diet consists of mostly plant life, specifically bamboo, although they can and do eat meat on occasion. Unfortunately, they're still physiologically carnivores and can't properly digest cellulose, which means that their diet of bamboo provides very little nutrition for them. Let's compound this problem with the fact that they can't eat just one kind of bamboo, pandas have to eat at least TWO different varieties of bamboo to avoid starvation. Commence facepalming now. I'll wait.

Note: This is a rarity, I know, most of my arguments are nowhere near this well thought out.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

The amount of Panda haters here saddens me.

 

[katie_girl09]

I agree. Let the panda's die.

Meanie.

 

[SuperFerret]

The WWF promotes a disproportionate amount of their funds to panda conservation simply because they're cute, cuddly, and the organization's mascot. I'm being completely serious when I say that I fully expect pandas to be extinct by the time I die.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

SuperFerret = The Hype's ultimate hater.

 

[katie_girl09]

The WWF promotes a disproportionate amount of their funds to panda conservation simply because they're cute, cuddly, and the organization's mascot. I'm being completely serious when I say that I fully expect pandas to be extinct by the time I die.

They probably will be. But you and your walrus friend are both insensitive! I think you're jealous.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not hating on pandas, I'm just saying that they're pretty much ****ed and it's not sensible to waste money on them while species like tigers, who also may go extinct within our lifetime, would benefit more from that help.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I say we make robot pandas

 

[Hound55]

I'm not hating on pandas, I'm just saying that they're pretty much ****ed and it's not sensible to waste money on them while species like tigers, who also may go extinct within our lifetime, would benefit more from that help.

Agreed 100%.

I made similar comments about a month ago, being topical because there's two pandas that are supposed to be coming to Adelaide zoo soon.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

 

[Majic Walrus]

Meanie.

Yeah. We should totally interfere with nature for our own person gain.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I'm not hating on pandas, I'm just saying that they're pretty much ****ed and it's not sensible to waste money on them while species like tigers, who also may go extinct within our lifetime, would benefit more from that help.

 

[Hound55]

Here's some comments I made on the Adelaide Advertiser's news site:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,26109511-5006301,00.html

Gee most experts seem to be rather bored lately. Dont they maybe they should study something worthwhile for a change LEAVE THE POOR PANDAS ALONE.Maybe they should study why the male species of human is such a cry baby when it comes to preserving nature

Mish, "leaving the poor pandas alone" is exactly what he's suggesting. They aren't a self-sustaining species, purely because their sex drive has become so weak that their numbers are shrinking in the wild DESPITE being HEAVILY protected by conservationist groups and having little to no natural predators. He's absolutely right, although its not exactly a PC thing to say. They've simply come to the end of their line in evolution, just as humanity will some day. Its only the arrogance of man and fear of death, veiled as compassion, that's keeping them alive today. To those making comparisons to the bilby, that's a flawed analogy due to the fact that WE artificially introduced these predators, that becomes a different debate entirely as a result. If these predators weren't around, their numbers would swell and they'd be a self-sustaining species. The pandas are not and will not be that way. It's not Packham here who has the agenda... its the WWF who have this cute animal as a logo and a cash drawcard, not to mention that it hardly looks good for people under their employ as conservationists to go around saying "Ahhhh, let em die." regardless of whether there's a valid point behind it. Its also funny that 'It's like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean.' is an argument that people use to oppose his coments. Its stupid and has nothing to do with anything he's saying. The panda is an evolutional cul-de-sac because its not capable of sustaining its own numbers, even without predators... its habitat has NOTHING to do with what Packham has been saying. The only "greater good" to keeping pandas alive and protected as they have been is as a symbol for the WWF, because huge amounts are sunk into trying to support that species every year. They're done.

John, koalas are self-sustaining largely. In fact when kept on KI where there were minimal natural predators a cull had to be ordered to quell their numbers to prevent the entire population dying slow and painful deaths through starvation. Koalas can and will breed frequently, whilst chlamydia is hitting those on the mainland pretty hard, an even greater threat than natural predators, pandas meanwhile just don't breed frequently enough, there's little more natural an end to a species than that...

Better idea. Let the human race die out and save the animals. And we consider ourselves intelligent.

If the human race died out the pandas would soon follow suit...

A pity the human race isn't in an evolutionary cul-de-sac. But thanks to religion we breed like rabbits and are suffocating the earth. Don't blame the pandas, blame selfish, stupid, weak-minded, over-sexed, spineless, greedy human beings. Remember: to covet is to be human.

I hardly think religion is to blame for human beings "breeding like rabbits". I think that might have a bit more to do with our physiology... And letting nature run its course is not "blaming the pandas". Incidentally, last I checked humanity wasn't to blame for the pandas dying more frequently than they could shore up their numbers by breeding. Whilst humanity may have picked away at a great deal of the food supply we merely sped up something that was already going to happen. Perhaps if pandas were "oversexed", sensible people wouldn't be labelling them an evolutionary cul-de-sac and announcing that its a clear waste of resources to be throwing money to save these creatures when that money could be spread around and do a lot more good preserving some animals which actually have a chance of re-establishing their position in nature.

 

[katie_girl09]

I say we make robot pandas

Yeah. We should totally interfere with nature for our own person gain.

I'm not making the case that we should continue to pour money into saving the panda, I am just making the observation that it is a bit flippant to say "Yeah, let them die off!". It is a huge loss. I don't know about you, but I think it kinda sucks that my generation never got to see a live Dodo. I think future generations would be getting ripped off in the same way not being able to see a panda.

 

[Hound55]

That's nature.

Everything has its time.

We never got to see dinosaurs either, should we be toying with genetics to try and replicate them and bring them back? Should we cling to every species on this Earth and look to make them all survive well beyond their time for them to die anyway because they aren't self-sustaining or should we save as many of the ones we can?

 

[katie_girl09]

That's nature.

Everything has its time.

We never got to see dinosaurs either, should we be toying with genetics to try and replicate them and bring them back? Should we cling to every species on this Earth and look to make them all survive well beyond their time for them to die anyway because they aren't self-sustaining or should we save as many of the ones we can?

I'm not making the case that we should continue to pour money into saving the panda, I am just making the observation that it is a bit flippant to say "Yeah, let them die off!".

 

[Hound55]

I know what you said.

I just think that comes down to mankind's own fear of death. Death happens, it's the only thing surer than life.

 

[SuperFerret]

It's not just "Let them die off". It's "Let them die off because we cannot do much of anything to help them, but if we reallocate these funds, we can save other species who have a far better chance because they didn't draw the proverbial short straw in regards to evolution and behaviour.

 

[Spider-Vader]

What an idiot.

I really hopes someone goes up to this guy & b**** slaps him.

 

[Hound55]

What an idiot.

I really hopes someone goes up to this guy & b**** slaps him.

Why?

Which part in particular isn't true?

 

[Spider-Vader]

That we should let a species die out that we helped out to get it this low. I'm not a big "Save the Planet" guy, but that is utterly stupid. If the Pandas were dying out naturally, then I'd say ok, but they aren't. They're dying because we are killing them for stupid ass rugs & clothes & we're tearing down their food sources.

 

[Hound55]

They're dying because they aren't breeding as fast as they're dying naturally.

They're under constant watch by conservationists and have no natural predators and still their numbers are falling.

Their sex drive isn't strong enough to sustain their species, there's not much more natural an end to a species than that.

 

[SuperFerret]

They're dying because they aren't breeding as fast as they're dying naturally.

They're under constant watch by conservationists and have no natural predators and still their numbers are falling.

Their sex drive isn't strong enough to sustain their species, there's not much more natural an end to a species than that.

Their overly specific diet is poor for their digestive tract.


Look at it this way, sharks and crocodilians have survived since before there were dinosaurs on the planet. Why? Partly because of how they're designed, they're nearly perfect for filling their niche, but it's also partly because of their behaviour, they've adapted to the changing times.

Anyone can tell you that trying progressive ideas tends to work better than sticking with older concepts, the same applies to natural selection. Rodents existed long before cities, but rats and mice have adapted to thrive in these new(er) environments. Crocs and sharks may have changed some physically in the millions of years, but they surely didn't last as long as they did by not varying their behaviour to suit the new world they live in.

Pandas are not adapting, they cannot adapt. Therefore they're pretty much doomed.

 

[Spider-Vader]

They're dying because they aren't breeding as fast as they're dying naturally.

They're under constant watch by conservationists and have no natural predators and still their numbers are falling.

Their sex drive isn't strong enough to sustain their species, there's not much more natural an end to a species than that.

Okay, that's a good point (& their picky diet too). But we did a good amount of damage to them. Still, there's no reason to just kill them all off. They're not doing anything wrong, except not adapting.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm not making the case that we should continue to pour money into saving the panda, I am just making the observation that it is a bit flippant to say "Yeah, let them die off!". It is a huge loss. I don't know about you, but I think it kinda sucks that my generation never got to see a live Dodo. I think future generations would be getting ripped off in the same way not being able to see a panda.

Have you ever seen a panda... Like "in person"? Me either.

The point is that I've also never seen a dinosaur or a Tasmanian tiger and it's unfortunate but natural and okay.