Let Pandas Die Out.

I think Pandas and Polar Bears should have a fight and whoever wins gets all are funding and backing :twisted:

Its what Charles Darwin would of wanted :oldrazz:

But seriously if they humped a little more and ate more than just Bamboo most of the time they wouldn't half make it easier for themselves :o
 
This thread is educational. I knew pandas were endangered, but I didn't realize how much. This makes that Kentucky Fried Panda store in an episode of The Simpsons that much funnier.

"Nooooo! It was finger ling ling good!"
 
Marx said:
Yeah. I'm more of a frog guy anyway. :oldrazz:
Click to expand...

Oh it's like that now Marx? These friends of mine aren't too fond of you being a frog man.

7d5774bd.jpg
 
No its the battlestoads!!!! Lol my friend called my mom a battled toad a couple weeks ago. I was so surprised and bent over with laughter i couldnt even talk for like 5 minutes
 
I'd like to address this notion that pandas were already on their way out before human influence. How is this a valid conclusion? If the traits these creatures possess are so ineffective and unsuccessful in evolutionary terms, how did they initially establish a successful population?

It's easy to see that these traits, in combination with human influence, would set them up for failure. But they do nothing to explain how these animals were already "on their way out."
 
Someone once said any species too stupid to f**k deserves to die. I think I agree with that guy.
 
chamber-music said:
I think Pandas and Polar Bears should have a fight and whoever wins gets all are funding and backing :twisted:

Its what Charles Darwin would of wanted :oldrazz:

But seriously if they humped a little more and ate more than just Bamboo most of the time they wouldn't half make it easier for themselves :o
Click to expand...

Polar Bears would win by default. The Pandas would run off the second they the Polars. :awesome:
 
The point is that the pandas aren't adapting, human influence isn't some sort of plague on this planet that ruins everything in its path. All species affect their environment and ecology. Pandas aren't able to adapt, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's from human influences, the influences of other species or environmental changes. Pandas, as they are today, are going extinct, with or without our help. There're still other species that would benefit more from our intervention on their behalf.
 
SuperFerret said:
The point is that the pandas aren't adapting, human influence isn't some sort of plague on this planet that ruins everything in its path. All species affect their environment and ecology.
Click to expand...
Can you think of a more destructive species than man?

SuperFerret said:
Pandas aren't able to adapt, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's from human influences, the influences of other species or environmental changes. Pandas, as they are today, are going extinct, with or without our help. There're still other species that would benefit more from our intervention on their behalf.
Click to expand...
How many animals are able to adapt to human influence? Certainly not the thousands of species we've already driven to extinction. This mindset is so childish: "Well, we destroyed the world you knew how to live in, but you don't deserve our help because you can't adapt."

Newsflash: if they were able to adapt, they wouldn't need our help. That's, uh....well, that's kind of the entire point. :dry:

Come on.

I'm not saying we should try to preserve them. I AM saying, however, that the reasoning you're trying to employ here is completely illogical.

SuperFerret said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is what I take issue with. The traits you go on to mention later in this post are the same traits that have allowed them to survive and form stable populations...that is, before humans began to destroy the places they live. Well, used to live.

So for you to try to frame this as a problem with the pandas themselves and not with the propensity of humans to destroy natural habitat is a little absurd to say the least. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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?
 
Carcharodon said:
Can you think of a more destructive species than man?

How many animals are able to adapt to human influence? Certainly not the thousands of species we've already driven to extinction. This mindset is so childish: "Well, we destroyed the world you knew how to live in, but you don't deserve our help because you can't adapt."

Newsflash: if they were able to adapt, they wouldn't need our help. That's, uh....well, that's kind of the entire point. :dry:

Come on.

I'm not saying we should try to preserve them. I AM saying, however, that the reasoning you're trying to employ here is completely illogical.

This is what I take issue with. The traits you go on to mention later in this post are the same traits that have allowed them to survive and form stable populations...that is, before humans began to destroy the places they live. Well, used to live.

So for you to try to frame this as a problem with the pandas themselves and not with the propensity of humans to destroy natural habitat is a little absurd to say the least. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting.
Click to expand...

Homo sapiens is an apex predator, perhaps the most effective apex predator ever. Apex predators have a tendency to cause imbalances in the ecosystem that could lead to extinctions when they relocate. Those animals that cannot adapt die out. It happens.

Of all the species that humanity has endangered, pandas just seem to have the worst chances to bounce back from the changes we've made, ergo we should just cut our losses and refocus our attention to those species that have a better chance.

How come it's okay that the superior hunting techniques of wolves had a hand in altering the North American ecosystem, but it's not when humans alter ecosystems?
 
Majic Walrus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I saw a few in a zoo in China so I have no problems letting them die out naturally :awesome:
 
I can't fathom how bad the conditions are in zoos in China.
 
Well, Buffalo sucks in general, but that's surprising, considering the conditions that the people live in. Could be because zoos tend to be home to multiple endangered species, so they're regulated by an outside party.
 
A man can dream though. Overall though, China doesn't treat its people very well.
 
SuperFerret said:
Homo sapiens is an apex predator, perhaps the most effective apex predator ever. Apex predators have a tendency to cause imbalances in the ecosystem that could lead to extinctions when they relocate. Those animals that cannot adapt die out. It happens.
Click to expand...
We're not just preying upon things. We're actively destroying habitat. Stop trying to make it sound like this happens all the time. I'm no stranger to ecological concepts, so spare me.

SuperFerret said:
Of all the species that humanity has endangered, pandas just seem to have the worst chances to bounce back from the changes we've made, ergo we should just cut our losses and refocus our attention to those species that have a better chance.
Click to expand...
I'm not necessarily arguing against this.

SuperFerret said:
How come it's okay that the superior hunting techniques of wolves had a hand in altering the North American ecosystem, but it's not when humans alter ecosystems?
Click to expand...
Do the wolves bulldoze habitat to create cities? Come on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,627 (members: 30, guests: 3,597)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,971
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"