Why save Pandas?

They've walked right off the evolutionary cliff. If poachers don't kill them off, their breeding and nurturing habits (lack of interest in sex, only taking care of one child while letting the other(s) die) would insure their extinction without the help of humans.

Indeed, we should let pandas die out(in the wild at least), we are interfering with nature trying to save them

They've walked right off the evolutionary cliff. If poachers don't kill them off, their breeding and nurturing habits (lack of interest in sex, only taking care of one child while letting the other(s) die) would insure their extinction without the help of humans.

KhanBloodsucker

Not sure about that. Species find niches to thrive in. If we didn't invade the Pandas', I think they would have been fine -- at least for a while. I do agree that such a sensitive species prolly can't adapt very quickly and might have died off 100 years from now in a parallel universe where humans didn't exist, but we don't know that and never will.

Humans are very good at distrupting the order of nature.

Besides, they are so damned cute!!

Indeed, we should let pandas die out(in the wild at least), we are interfering with nature trying to save them

Overlord93

If you include the original interference that we imposed on them to be natural, then yes, I agree with you.

I don't buy that. Humans didn't kill their sex drive and Pandas have been abandoning their excess young on their own.

Indeed, we should let pandas die out(in the wild at least), we are interfering with nature trying to save themOverlord93

Nature plays no favorites and saves no one. You either evolve the right way or you die. Been that way since the beginning of time.

Nature plays no favorites and saves no one. You either evolve the right way or you die. Been that way since the beginning of time.

KhanBloodsucker

I don't know. What have pandas ever done for me? :x

Because.

And lets not forget...

Yeah, all endangered species should be extict. Who cares, right? :|

Shouldn't we start with humans first ?FMAB_GTO

Some people need to put their priorities at the right place, but saving animals is certainly better than buying new F35s.

Yeah, all endangered species should be extict. Who cares, right? :|

bloodling

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Yeah, all endangered species should be extict. Who cares, right? :|

KhanBloodsucker

So what? Why should we let them die?

Darwins law doesn't apply when humans are fixing what they broke in the first place.

So what? If you don't treat people with cancer they will die as well.

bloodling

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

So what? If you don't treat people with cancer they will die as well.

SeraphimGoddess

Of course. Now please tell me why we shouldn't save them.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

Indeed, we should let pandas die out(in the wild at least), we are interfering with nature trying to save them

MichBelle

Cuz they're tasty. Mmmmm.....stir fried panda...........Ooooh.. and panda roasts..... yummy !!!

It makes a difference when we are going out of our way, and spending money on saving a creature that is a failure.Overlord93

I agree with the first part, but why should the animal lovers be blamed for hunger? There are far better targets to blame for world hunger.

Of course. Now please tell me why we shouldn't save them.

bloodling

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Of course. Now please tell me why we shouldn't save them.

SeraphimGoddess

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Of course. Now please tell me why we shouldn't save them.

SeraphimGoddess

The way I see it, so much money is spend for things far more useless. I think endangered species should be protected reasonably well without going out of line. I understand why people wouldn't care as much as I do.

[QUOTE="MichBelle"][QUOTE="Overlord93"] yes, eating animals and hunting them to extinction is not interfering with nature (at least in my eyes) but taking animals out of the wild, and desperately trying to get them to breed because they don't seem to wan't to. Is interferingOverlord93

LOL @ the cuter than children part. It's only mostly true.

We originally interfered simply by taking over their natural habitat. We are expanding our range every second and displacing animals that have evolved over ages and generations to live in certain regions, certain climates or habitats, even certain valleys or lake or rivers. I see it as simply fixing our completely invasive and disruptive actions.

BTW, we have plenty of places/organizations to help hungry children. Very few people actually work to keep Pandas alive, especially compared with the formerly mentioned help network for kids. Most of it, I would imagine, is private money or money set aside specifically for endangered species. It certainly isn't your money, so why take such a negative view on it?

If Panda become extinct then we will never be able to see another one in the zoo or in nature, not you or your kids or your children's children. NEVER EVER AGAIN. Not sure if the permanence of such a thing is really sinking in with you ...

That's why im a supporter of

"Cause they need all the firepower they can get!"

Do we know their part of the ecosystem? Do we know the effects of removing them? horgen123

Darwins law doesn't apply when humans are fixing what they broke in the first place.

joesh89

Saving an entire species is worthwhile....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MichBelle"][QUOTE="Overlord93"] yes, eating animals and hunting them to extinction is not interfering with nature (at least in my eyes) but taking animals out of the wild, and desperately trying to get them to breed because they don't seem to wan't to. Is interferingOverlord93

Why should we give starving children food? If you apply the same standards you apply to other animals, shouldn't we just let them die since it is obviously a failure of humans in the first place that has led to them starving?

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="MichBelle"] I don't see how that makes a difference. We're just another animal.SUD123456

Why should we give starving children food? If you apply the same standards you apply to other animals, shouldn't we just let them die since it is obviously a failure of humans in the first place that has led to them starving?

Caring for your own species should be of pretty high priority I'm sure.Overlord93

Yes, but their job is to save pandas. Saying that pandas should be left to die is like telling someone working at a pet shop that their job is useless, and that they should devote their life to helping children in need.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"] It makes a difference when we are going out of our way, and spending money on saving a creature that is a failure. rather than giving starving children food. Simply because Pandas are cuter than childrenOverlord93

Why should we give starving children food? If you apply the same standards you apply to other animals, shouldn't we just let them die since it is obviously a failure of humans in the first place that has led to them starving?

Really? Looks around the world. Sees humans killing each other everywhere. Sees vast resources spent on militaries whose sole purpose is to wage war amongst humans.

Nope. I reject your hypothesis outright by simply comparing the resources spent on militaries, luxury goods, etc vs the expected cost of feeding starving children.

Also, I note that the total amount of resources used worldwide on all forms of wildlife care is laughably puny compared to how much we spend trying to kill each other.

So, I am pretty sure that caring for our own species is not of particularly high priority for humans. Now caring for our own self interest is a different story...