The Battousai
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 10,642
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I almost thought you were being serious, but then I remembered that this is the internet 
Pandas are beautiful animals...if we can preserve them and save them, we should.
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?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...
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.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.
And I'm not saying you have to bring evidence.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.![]()
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.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 completely disagree.I'm just saying that its more likely knowing what we know about pandas.
And that's fine. Because so far there's no evidence to disprove either one of us.I completely disagree.![]()
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.Like their child neglecting behavioural patterns that SuperFerret mentioned on the second page.
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).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??
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.
Isn't that what we have been doing? Is it working?
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.
![]()
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I almost thought you were being serious, but then I remembered that this is the internet![]()
Sig'd!"Hey you. Panda bear! We don't take kindly to your types around here!"
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.