Why save Pandas?

[QUOTE="silverwind23"][QUOTE="Overlord93"] becuase we are using that money on pandas, rather than other, far more important things.... :roll:LJS9502_basic

I've noticed you end a lot of your posts with "........"

Because saving GH is one of the best things we could do. :P

But Pandas are cool.

I agree. We can save them in captivity, but I don't see a point in spending a lot of money in trying to keep them alive in the wild if what you say is true about them. I don't know a lot about pandas, but if they are too lazy to even have sex then what are they good for? Maybe they need anti depressants or to lay off the alcohol or something...

Sure the might have died off without humans but that would take thousands of years

Because they're adorable, that's why.

[QUOTE="KhanBloodsucker"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

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

bloodling

So what? Why should we let them die?

Down with pandas. Down with pandas.

If we put all our efforts together I think we can get the U.S. government behind us and have an all out in war on pandas. First we bomb all pandas and wipe them out. Then we can move onto useless tapirs. Then the even more useless koala.

Get rid of all human interference, both poachers and environmentalists trying to save them. Let nature run its course.UT_Wrestler

There are more then things then just those two groups effecting them..

Get rid of all human interference, both poachers and environmentalists trying to save them. Let nature run its course.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Get rid of all human interference, both poachers and environmentalists trying to save them. Let nature run its course.quetzalcoatI

Except our presence can destroy the entire worlds ecosystem leading to our extinction as a race.

Why save humans? Same question, same answer.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why save humans? Same question, same answer.KiIIyou

Thats why we must make as much fur coats out of them as we can.

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why save humans? Same question, same answer.kidsmelly

Thats why we must make as much fur coats out of them as we can.

So I can have one as a pet one day.rmerri52

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why save humans? Same question, same answer.KiIIyou

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Get rid of all human interference, both poachers and environmentalists trying to save them. Let nature run its course.quetzalcoatI

I happen to like pandas. :x

thats why

Pandas are cool. :roll:

Why save humans? Same question, same answer.kuraimen

They make for good hats.

They didn't walk off the evolutionary cliff, we shoved them. The fact is that humans are different from every other animal observable in nature. Even predators come to a natural equilebrium with the animals and ecosystems surrounding them, humans are the only animal who not only destroys species that are further down on the food chain than them but destroys ecosystems (which is one of the biggest reasons pandas are disappearing, not because they only focus on one of their young but because their natural habitat and primary food source is being threatened by human development). It would be one thing if they were naturally disappearing due to an inability to compete with other species in the wild, but they were perfectly successful surviving in the wild before we started destroying their food source.

Saving an entire species is worthwhile....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Saving an entire species is worthwhile....KhanBloodsucker

Why save humans? Same question, same answer.kuraimen

They didn't walk off the evolutionary cliff, we shoved them. The fact is that humans are different from every other animal observable in nature. Even predators come to a natural equilebrium with the animals and ecosystems surrounding them, humans are the only animal who not only destroys species that are further down on the food chain than them but destroys ecosystems (which is one of the biggest reasons pandas are disappearing, not because they only focus on one of their young but because their natural habitat and primary food source is being threatened by human development). It would be one thing if they were naturally disappearing due to an inability to compete with other species in the wild, but they were perfectly successful surviving in the wild before we started destroying their food source.

theone86

Wow.

some panda sure did a number on you...grape_of_wrath

Making a statement of fact isn't "having a number done on me".

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Saving a species that can't survive if all things were even anyway is "worthwile"? A species that dies out because it took a wrong turn on the Evolution Turnpike has happened for eons, and it isn't always the fault of humans. I seriously doubt "human encroachment" stopped the Pandas from having sex en masse and turned them into the worst mammal parents in the animal kingdom.KhanBloodsucker

Pandas never had sex en masse, they always had tenative mating cycles and always cared for one child over the other because if they cared for both it's likely that BOTH would die out. Before human encroachment that was enough to survive, but we interfered in the environment which they evolved in.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why save humans? Same question, same answer.KhanBloodsucker

Nope, we'll die out because we have no regard for our own environment. In fact, it's possible we'll die out because we had too much sex, now wouldn't that be ironic?

Pandas never had sex en masse, they always had tenative mating cycles and always cared for one child over the other because if they cared for both it's likely that BOTH would die out.theone86

Why not? We screwed up, and now we're trying to fix it. Why abandon an entire species, even if they are lazy and don't like to reproduce? Look at humans. Sure you can argue that we evolved the 'right' way, with all the success and conquering and what not, but we are also an incredibly vicious species unlike any other on the planet. And we kill each other for stupid reasons. Humans are the only species that kill EACH OTHER on a global scale. Sure, their may be some lion that eats its own cub, but I guarantee you that there aren't two armies of lions killing each other off. We have tons of problems as well, but hey we're still alive. What gives us the right to get rid of pandas? If we hadn't messed with them in the first place, this would be a non-issue. We could just let nature run its course, and pandas might have survived or might have died. On their own. But no, we went in and killed a bunch of em' to start, and then started plowing down their homes. Kinda makes sense that they aren't surviving. It doesn't matter if they would've 'died anyway' because of their 'bad reproductive habits'. It's the fact that we messed with them. Now we have to fix our mistakes, because we don't know for sure if they really WOULD have 'died anyway'

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why save humans? Same question, same answer.chaplainDMK

[Quote="grape_of_wrath"]Wow.

some panda sure did a number on you...KhanBloodsucker

Making a statement of fact isn't "having a number done on me".

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

Overlord93

Ironically we messed with nature 1st and caused them to die...

thats y we have pandas with guns

:)

[QUOTE="theone86"]Pandas never had sex en masse, they always had tenative mating cycles and always cared for one child over the other because if they cared for both it's likely that BOTH would die out.KhanBloodsucker

Uh, yes it is. There are more factors to population growth than just procreation, a species can **** to their hearts content and they won't survive if they don't have a viable food source. That's the number one factor in species' survival is a viable food source. In fact, that's the reason pandas only care for one of their young, food is very scarce in their natural environment and they have to make the most out of what they have. The reason they survived for this long is because they evolved to survive on the one viable food source for their digestive systems, but that also means less procreation. Then along comes humanity, destroys that food source, disrupts a natural environment that pandas had specifically evolved to survive in. It's not nature that killed pandas, it's humans.

[QUOTE="KhanBloodsucker"][QUOTE="theone86"]Pandas never had sex en masse, they always had tenative mating cycles and always cared for one child over the other because if they cared for both it's likely that BOTH would die out.theone86

Uh, yes it is. There are more factors to population growth than just procreation, a species can **** to their hearts content and they won't survive if they don't have a viable food source. That's the number one factor in species' survival is a viable food source. In fact, that's the reason pandas only care for one of their young, food is very scarce in their natural environment and they have to make the most out of what they have. The reason they survived for this long is because they evolved to survive on the one viable food source for their digestive systems, but that also means less procreation. Then along comes humanity, destroys that food source, disrupts a natural environment that pandas had specifically evolved to survive in. It's not nature that killed pandas, it's humans.

That perfeclty natural for another race of creatures to over take another.. That doesn't make it a good thing, natural things wipe out life all the time.. And humans haev a vested interested in protectiing all spieces. Afterall it was numerous "natural" events that killed off the majority of creatures on the planet overall the course of its history.

[QUOTE="quetzalcoatI"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]Get rid of all human interference, both poachers and environmentalists trying to save them. Let nature run its course.sSubZerOo

Except our presence can destroy the entire worlds ecosystem leading to our extinction as a race.

That sounds pretty dramatic, but we are just talking about Pandas here. The world didn't collapse when the Dodos fell off the evolutionary chain and it wouldn't if the pandas did. When you have to put resources into keeping a species alive (in the wild) then the question becomes what is this species existence doing for us and you obviously have to take that on a species to species basis. How are pandas being in the wild really aiding humanity and the world's ecosystem?

That perfeclty natural for another race of creatures to over take another.. That doesn't make it a good thing, natural things wipe out life all the time.. And humans haev a vested interested in protectiing all spieces. Afterall it was numerous "natural" events that killed off the majority of creatures on the planet overall the course of its history.

sSubZerOo

VERY, very rarely does one species destroy another species,predators are reliant on lesser species and themselves will not survive if they completely wipe them out. I think the onus would be on you to prove that there's been a species other than humans that have destroyed entire ecosystems. Natural selection dictates that species come to an equilebrium with their ecosystem.

That sounds pretty dramatic, but we are just talking about Pandas here. The world didn't collapse when the Dodos fell off the evolutionary chain and it wouldn't if the pandas did. When you have to put resources into keeping a species alive (in the wild) then the question becomes what is this species existence doing for us and you obviously have to take that on a species to species basis. How are pandas being in the wild really aiding humanity and the world's ecosystem?

quetzalcoatI

Well, one are we just talking about pandas, or are we using pandas to establish a base for the purpose of demonizing all further ecological efforts? Two, that kind of thinking leads to worse thinking, there's such a thing in nature as a keystone species. If a keystone species goes extinct, it can have long-lasting ramifications so great as wiping out an entire ecosystem. I don't believe the panda is a keystone species, but regular people don't even know what a keystone species is and if you are able to villify conservation in this instance they won't see the difference when someone else tries to villify the conservation of a keystone species.

In terms of what they do for us, who are we to make that judgement? Why is there this default position that expansion is progress, and that anything that hinders expansion is also hindering social progress? Who's to say we're a better society for having more developed land and fewer naturally occuring ecosystems? Why isn't the other way around? After all, development is a dime a dozen, conrete and bulding supplies are plentiful, and human establishments can hardly be considered uncommon. Natural ecosystem, on the other hand, take centuries if not millenia to evolve, species that go extinct are lost to us forever, doesn't their rarity make them intrinsically more valuable than human settlement? I would argue yes, and that it is our task to find a way of living that allows us to co-exist with natural ecosystems. If nothing else, what gives a relatively small portion of the world population the right to deprive the rest of the world of ecosystems and species? I see no justification for that.

[QUOTE="KhanBloodsucker"]

Making a statement of fact isn't "having a number done on me".

grape_of_wrath

So if I say "Jewish people don't celebrate Christmas, they celebrate Hanukkah", a statement of fact, then Jewish people "did a number on me"? Riiiight. :roll: