Should pandas be allowed to go extinct?

[Eldritch]

Earlier this year, the British nature photographer Chris Packham caused uproar by suggesting that Pandas should be allowed to die out -- his argument being that we've de facto driven them to extinction already, and the resources currently being used to keep Pandas around for a few more generations could be much better used elsewhere.


An ex-carnivore bamboo muncher unfortunately ends up in the most populated place on earth. Its food predictably all dies with disastrous regularity and its digestive system is poorly adapted to its diet. It's slow to reproduce, tastes good, but in a blind strike of evolutionary luck it is plump, cute and cuddly. That is from an anthropological point of view. So given only the latter in the formative days of conservation the pioneers choose it as a symbol and begin to investigate its conservation. Panda porn, or the lack of it, made us all giggle in the sixties and seventies and gradually the fat pied ones became greater than the sum of the sense in keeping them alive. But having spent so much it's very difficult to stop. We are now spending millions and millions of dollars on a loser which lives in a country being stormed by the whole worlds greedy despite its horrible politics. It's Catch 22 for Pandas and we're caught by the credit cards despite our very own desperate credit crisis. So I say stop, save our relatively paltry funds for cases where we can make a real difference, because that's our job.

So what do you think? Is it time to let the Pandas go? Would that serve as a sort of wake-up call for humanity? Or should we do whatever we can to try to save them?

What do you think in general about the usage of cute, cuddly animals to promote environmental awareness?

http://lonestartimes.com/images/TexasTommy/panda_kid_jpeg.JPG

More here. (http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/packham-panda342.html#cr)

[The Lawspeaker]

No. I don't think we should. Too many species have already gone extinct and the problem with each specie is that it is also connected to other species in the animal or plant kingdom that also could go extinct as a result.

We ought to put a lot of resources into saving species and learn more about the ways in which our complicated environment (local or global) works. That's at least a worthier cause then spending money on the global warming-scheme.

[Allenson]

My thought, right off the top of my noggin is that if a species heads toward extinction or goes extinct on its own accord, well, that's just the way it goes. However, if human activity has played a significant role in the extinction or push toward, of a species, then yes, we have a moral obligation to take measures to prevent this.

And yes, charismatic mega-fauna always go a lot further in promoting awareness than does a slime-mold, for example. ;)

[Monolith]

Humans have a responsibility towards their environment, and it is humans who are to be held accountable for the critical situation of the pandas. I think their species should be restored.

[Lahtari]

Emotions aside, if there's limited resources they should be used as effectively as possible - not as sentimentally as possible. If people don't like that, they can donate more, or maybe the companies can take action and then promote themselves as "panda-friendly" or something.


And yes, charismatic mega-fauna always go a lot further in promoting awareness than does a slime-mold, for example. ;)

I think an even better way to promote awareness is to threaten to let pandas go extinct. ;)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Emotions aside, if there's limited resources they should be used as effectively as possible - not as sentimentally as possible. If people don't like that, they can donate more, or maybe the companies can take action and then promote themselves as "panda-friendly" or something.



I think an even better way to promote awareness is to threaten to let pandas go extinct. ;)

China and limited resources ????????

[anonymaus]

Whoever wrote that should be allowed to go extinct.

[Psychonaut]

Unless the majority of their population is wiped out, China is not going to be able to support pandas again. For Gods' sakes, they eat 84 pounds of bamboo every day (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html)! They serve no ecological niche other than that which tugs at the heart strings of bipeds who adhere to the "survival of the cutest" ideology. Out of all the endangered species I can think of, the panda seems like the most blatantly ridiculous one.

[Kadu]

Unless the majority of their population is wiped out, China is not going to be able to support pandas again. For Gods' sakes, they eat 84 pounds of bamboo every day (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html)! They serve no ecological niche other than that which tugs at the heart strings of bipeds who adhere to the "survival of the cutest" ideology. Out of all the endangered species I can think of, the panda seems like the most blatantly ridiculous one.

They also have a low reproductive rate, the only great problem is that Humans nowdays occupy a great part of their habitat which is translated in less bamboo to eat.

BTW, do they play any signicant role in their habitat?

[Psychonaut]

BTW, do they play any signicant role in their habitat?

I can't find any information about them playing any role other than eating crap tons of bamboo. :shrug:

[Osweo]

'We' do have a duty to do what we can. In the Panda's particular case, we could try to cull its competitors. How many Han does the world need anyway? They occupy no useful ecological space other than skinning cats and dogs alive, making dead baby soup, eating fish alive, torturing bears to death for their gall bladder products, eating ground down rhino horn and Amur tiger bones and any other weird bit of the rarest animals you can imagine... :....

That said though, 'we' in this case is certainly the Han themselves, and I doubt their government will allow the creature to go extinct. Unfortunately though, it may well end up a purely domestic animal in the process. :(

[Monolith]

Unless the majority of their population is wiped out, China is not going to be able to support pandas again. For Gods' sakes, they eat 84 pounds of bamboo every day (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giant_panda.html)! They serve no ecological niche other than that which tugs at the heart strings of bipeds who adhere to the "survival of the cutest" ideology. Out of all the endangered species I can think of, the panda seems like the most blatantly ridiculous one.
All endangered species should be restored though, so as to create a more level playing field for all of them. Let nature decide which species is "cute" or "fit".

[LoneWolf]

"I wana put a bullet between the eyes of every panda that wouldn't screw to save it's own species."

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I can't find any information about them playing any role other than eating crap tons of bamboo. :shrug:

Heck, Psychnaut you got me here:D


“My basic view is that animal species only have value to the extent they have value to humans.”
That’s the most anthropocentric statement that can possibly be made. Let’s ignore the Panda for the moment. Are you honestly saying that we, as humans, are capable of understanding the value of all life on this planet? Because that’s what would be required to make your judgment. And what happens if you choose incorrectly?
Not to mention that you’re only one very slippery slope away from “I believe that humans have value only to the extent that they serve other humans”. Would you agree with that statement?
Here’s the rub: who judges? The Third Reich had some very clear ideas on what did and did not qualify as a superior example of the species.


Down with the Native Americans.
Down with the Amazonian tribes
Down with the Tueso
Down with the Gorillas
Down with the Orangutans
Down with the Waldensians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians) - 0.05 million
Down with the Latvian Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Orthodox_Church) - 0.02 million

By the time we have eradicated all eco-useless creatures we have the whole world to fertilize:D:D

[Lulletje Rozewater]

"I wana put a bullet between the eyes of every panda that wouldn't screw to save it's own species."

The problems of the pandas and some Apricians:D are:-
(1) Their genitals do not match in size.
(2) The males do not instinctively know how to mate
(3) Females seldom come on 'heat'

(4) Females show no signs for males to know they are on 'heat'
(5) The females are irritated by the advances of males
(6) The pair often end up fighting each other causing injury





Now if evolution produces life on earth, the theory and simulations show that strong breeding ability has to be selected for, otherwise a species will not produce a large enough population for evolution act on.
Some may say that pandas have lost their reproductive ability because evolution is not working on them at the moment.

[Treffie]

Yes, I think they should be saved. Why is it that a creature needs to justify its own existence/survival? The panda just is, even though it doesn't serve any purpose other than looking cuddly. What else would the WWF have on its logo instead?

http://www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk/images/wwf.jpg

A koala perhaps? Erm...wait, they're on their way out too...........:(

http://cybertraveltips.com/images/Austrailian-Koala-Bears.jpg

[Kadu]

http://www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk/images/wwf.jpg


Can you imagine logging on TA and seeing a Panda yawning right next to...:D
The apricity forum, for Panda* preservation


*solely ethnic, otherwise change your diet you bamboo eating gluttons:D

[Psychonaut]

Why is it that a creature needs to justify its own existence/survival?


This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

:wink

[manu]

the new model is all right

http://www.rentcarseminara.com/immagini/automobili/fiat-panda.jpg

[LoneWolf]

Think about it Pandas are like god's own biological radio carbon dating. Just like, as radioactive beta decay breaks down half of the carbon 14 in something every 5300+ years meaning that eventually there will be no more carbon 14 in afore mentioned source. Analogous to this situation when god created the world he put only so many pandas in it so that by their rate of decay we would one day be able to date the very world we live in. So according to my very scientific logic saving pandas is like playing god and should not be done lest we face the very dire consequences.

[Óttar]

Tulips appealed to our sense of beauty and therefore was spread all over the Earth. Plants, vegetables and tubers appeal to our need for something, and they ensure their survival through us. Perhaps also, cute animals have evolved to appeal to our fondness and sympathy for cuteness.

Just a thought.

But yeah, I agree with Oswiu. Depopulate the Han.

[LoneWolf]

Not if that cute animal pre-dates us.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Not if that cute animal pre-dates us.

Psychonaut would have been right,had the Chinese not screwed up the Panda's territory.
Repeat>>>>>

In populations of wild animals, evolution works on many characteristics/characters at the one time. In herds of domestic animals, which are claimed to reflect evolution in action, only a few characters are selected by the breeder. Every successful animal breeder knows that it is a waste of time trying to select for many characters at the same time. Usually breeders only select for one or two characters. When these characters are 'set' in the herd, the breeders select for others. This is not the same way that evolution is claimed to work.
Animal husbandry textbooks teach that all characters that need changing must be ruthlessly selected. "To eliminate the unwanted ones rigorous selection is necessary" (J. Hammond, et al., "Hammond's Farm Animals" (4th ed.) Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd: London, 1971 p:246)
In wild populations, however, natural selection works by the death of animals under circumstances not determined by human interests. The greatest selection pressure is placed on those animals that are the weakest. These are the ones that are more easily captured and eaten by predators.
The results of computer simulations, have shown that in theory, evolution working through natural selection will also select animals on their reproductive capacity. As many individuals are killed by predators, evolution favours those with the ability to produce large numbers of offspring, as well as those with speed and stamina to evade capture.
Less important features such as the shape of the eye or the size of the ear virtually take no part in the selection process. All characters other than those affecting reproduction and evasion should therefore remain constant in the population.
For characters which is controlled by many genes (rather than just one gene), genetic studies show that the character's heritability is crucial. Low heritability means that a character makes virtually no progress in taking over a population. While characters with higher heritability have difficulty spreading in a population. Evolution under natural conditions should therefore only work on one or two characters at a time, and then only on those characters that are controlled by a single gene.
It is interesting to note that the Giant Panda does not fit this scenario - it appears to be an exception. If evolution is true, with our knowledge only an interpretation of the past events, then animals should fit the scientific model.
An article in the Science section of The Canberra Times (14/10/97 p:18) records the lament of Dr Li Shaochang, director of China's Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding. The doctor believes that Giant Pandas will only exist for the next one or two decades. They are not becoming extinct because of human slaughter, but because they are not good breeders in the wild.
Despite Giant Pandas having 'evolved', Chen Yucun, Director of the Fuzhou Zoological Society, reported that the male and female pandas have reproductive incompatibilities. Even with an IVF (artificial breeding) program, scientists foresee problems even with breeding pandas in captivity.
The problems of the pandas are:-
(1) Their genitals do not match in size
(2) The males do not instinctively know how to mate
(3) Females seldom come on 'heat'
(4) Females show no signs for males to know they are on 'heat'
(5) The females are irritated by the advances of males
(6) The pair often end up fighting each other causing injury

Now if evolution produces life on earth, the theory and simulations show that strong breeding ability has to be selected for, otherwise a species will not produce a large enough population for evolution act on.
Some may say that pandas have lost their reproductive ability because evolution is not working on them at the moment. With no natural predators to keep their breeding fine-tuned, pandas are "devolving" in that area. For this to be true, however, there must be active, natural selection to cause such changes. Clearly this is not the case

http://unmaskingevolution.com/16-pandas.htm.

Then this page 1 and 2


http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/05-could-pandas-be-an-evolutionary-mistake2014or-proof-of-an-intelligent-designer/

and
page 1 and 2 of

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/12-are-efforts-to-save-the-panda-a-giant-waste-of-money/



For the Yangtze Basin, the panda has proved an effective ambassador. Because of panda-centered conservation, China—a country with an abysmal environmental record (http://www.cfr.org/publication/12608/chinas_environmental_crisis.html)—is taking dramatic steps to protect their environment. A logging ban has been in place for 10 years, former poachers now earn a living as trackers for panda tourists, and the local people are recognizing the value of the natural environment beyond its role as a source of meat and timber. By preserving the panda's forest home, conservationists hope to protect thousands of other species—including 100 mammals, 250 birds, thousands of insects—as well as the water supply for nearly 40 percent of China’s people.

[Heimmacht]

A stupid animal who only eats bamboo and could never survive because it just won't adjust, should die out.

[Treffie]

:wink

There's no harm in getting a little human help to keep the kids happy :)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

A stupid animal who only eats bamboo and could never survive because it just won't adjust, should die out.

Who said it won't adjust????
Look at the eyes,they are evolving into slit eyes..:D

[Osweo]

When these characters are 'set' in the herd, the breeders select for others. This is not the same way that evolution is claimed to work.
Evolution of a large natural wild population, and the selection within a small herd are rather different things. :rolleyes:

As many individuals are killed by predators, evolution favours those with the ability to produce large numbers of offspring, as well as those with speed and stamina to evade capture.
Less important features such as the shape of the eye or the size of the ear virtually take no part in the selection process. All characters other than those affecting reproduction and evasion should therefore remain constant in the population.
IDIOCY. Everything affects 'reproduction and evasion'. General fitness, relative longevity and good nutrition obviously help breeding success. If a slight modification of the ear helps you listen just that TINY bit better, it could be the difference between being eaten or going off to mate with a partner in half an hour.

Despite Giant Pandas having 'evolved', Chen Yucun, Director of the Fuzhou Zoological Society, reported that the male and female pandas have reproductive incompatibilities.
And yet they HAVE been breeding in the wild for millions of years. This article is absolute drivel.

(1) Their genitals do not match in size
(2) The males do not instinctively know how to mate
(3) Females seldom come on 'heat'
(4) Females show no signs for males to know they are on 'heat'
(5) The females are irritated by the advances of males
(6) The pair often end up fighting each other causing injury
And yet humans manage somehow... :wink

Some may say that pandas have lost their reproductive ability because evolution is not working on them at the moment.
Yup. And also; natural variation is limited due to limited numbers and poor or impossible contact opportunities between groups.

With no natural predators to keep their breeding fine-tuned, pandas are "devolving" in that area. For this to be true, however, there must be active, natural selection to cause such changes. Clearly this is not the case
Says who? 'Unmasking Evolution dot Com'? Ha. :rolleyes:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Evolution of a large natural wild population, and the selection within a small herd are rather different things. :rolleyes:

IDIOCY. Everything affects 'reproduction and evasion'. General fitness, relative longevity and good nutrition obviously help breeding success. If a slight modification of the ear helps you listen just that TINY bit better, it could be the difference between being eaten or going off to mate with a partner in half an hour.

And yet they HAVE been breeding in the wild for millions of years. This article is absolute drivel.

And yet humans manage somehow... :wink

Yup. And also; natural variation is limited due to limited numbers and poor or impossible contact opportunities between groups.

Says who? 'Unmasking Evolution dot Com'? Ha. :rolleyes:

:D:D Osweo.

Psychonaut would have been right,had the Chinese not screwed up the Panda's territory.

I gave websites of various opinions on the Panda(see ALL)
I ,have to use my brain to answer you :),damn you :)
I love the Panda,like I love the Kwagga Dodo(dead to the world and a number of other endangers species.
I shall answer you shortly.

[Lahtari]

Think about it Pandas are like god's own biological radio carbon dating. Just like, as radioactive beta decay breaks down half of the carbon 14 in something every 5300+ years meaning that eventually there will be no more carbon 14 in afore mentioned source. Analogous to this situation when god created the world he put only so many pandas in it so that by their rate of decay we would one day be able to date the very world we live in. So according to my very scientific logic saving pandas is like playing god and should not be done lest we face the very dire consequences.

If that's the case we should really do everything to save the pandas. Think about if God is using pandacarbon dating to calculate the date of Doomsday.. :eek: :D

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Evolution of a large natural wild population, and the selection within a small herd are rather different things. :rolleyes:

Not really,Nature takes 1000 of years,while man does it in a few decades. See wolf and the dogs,a Scottie was bred in such a way that the hardy tail(for pulling him out of a mole-tunnel) and the teeth(the largest of any dog) and small ears(so he does not get stuck by pulling him out a mole tunnel and his feet(which allows him to creep into a mole tunnel) . The problem with artificial breeding is the "certainty" that the Scottie, if he survives in the wild,will possibly takes on the body of a wolf of a sort.Artificial breeding is unnatural.



IDIOCY. Everything affects 'reproduction and evasion'. General fitness, relative longevity and good nutrition obviously help breeding success. If a slight modification of the ear helps you listen just that TINY bit better, it could be the difference between being eaten or going off to mate with a partner in half an hour.

That is correct,but I look at it in the way the writer 'seem' to imply.
Tiny changes or single changes do not matter in the grand scheme of reproduction . A blind Scottie is obviously prone to predators,he has however the ability to get plenty good offspring before he is "eaten"
If however, in his state of blindness, he can not find the 'entrance' to a vagina his smell will do the trick.


And yet they HAVE been breeding in the wild for millions of years. This article is absolute drivel.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2qjc8qq.jpg

Bear in mind that the Panda has 1 cub every two years,so it is important to have a large population and the Chinese have invaded their territory to a large extend thus depopulating the Panda's land.




And yet humans manage somehow... :wink

Yup. And also; natural variation is limited due to limited numbers and poor or impossible contact opportunities between groups.

Says who? 'Unmasking Evolution dot Com'? Ha. :rolleyes:

Pandas forage at least 16 hours a day consuming about 20 kg bamboo,which they hardly digest.They poop about 40 times a day.
Yet I do not understand that the Panda has a short colon,which we find in meat eating bears,not suitable for a vegetarian.They have evolved a Panda's Thumb but fail to evolve a longer colon.
There must be a reason for this.
In the Panda area there are more endangered species the Red Crested Ibis(80 left), a type of rat and a type of buck.
One of the predators is the Eagle otherwise none.
It could be the Panda is still evolving It has a "thumb" it does not hibernate and it needs a longer colon. I do not know.
They do however eat eggs and rats although not on a large scale.

[Cato]

If they go extinct we can't say finger ling-ling good.

http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/04/0405130511756b6b235c32939c3e4991a9720698_full.jpg

[Liffrea]

Seems a bit odd a man interested in the natural world making a comment like that…….

I’m not entirely convinced that humans can be classed as just another competitor in the natural world.

Anyway nature is usually an uncompromising mother when it comes to parasites that don’t have a useful role to play in the world’s ecology…….a major cull of humanity should be along anytime…….

[December]

A small slice of the Chinese military budget should be enough to multiply by 100 the existing Pandas in the next 10 years.

Humans are much more harmful to this planet and to themselves than Pandas. Eventually we will be extinct as we well deserve. Only this way, hypocrisy, cruelty and greed will end.

[Poltergeist]

Somebody should ask pandas to know their opinion in the matter, namely, whether they themselves want to survive or to go extinct.

[Lahtari]

I’m not entirely convinced that humans can be classed as just another competitor in the natural world.

Why? Because we're too successfull?

[Lahtari]

Humans are much more harmful to this planet and to themselves than Pandas.

The only way humans can be potentially "harmful to the planet" is if we learn how to make fusion bombs. As a matter of fact we can be extremely beneficial to this planet when we learn to alter courses of comets and meteorites away from us. (Taken that a planet actually gives a stardust particle about whether it's blown to pieces or not.)


Eventually we will be extinct as we well deserve. Only this way, hypocrisy, cruelty and greed will end.

Well, leading by example has always been held in a much higher esteem than whining.. :shrug:

[Eldritch]

A small slice of the Chinese military budget should be enough to multiply by 100 the existing Pandas in the next 10 years.



Undoubtedly true. But tell that to the Chinese government, not to us.

[Allenson]

Somebody should ask pandas to know their opinion in the matter, namely, whether they themselves want to survive or to go extinct.

The fact that they eat, breath, try to reproduce and care for their young on their own should answer the question rather quickly. :cool:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lahtari
Why? Because we're too successfull?

No, because we’re not a piece on the board…..

[December]

The only way humans can be potentially "harmful to the planet" is if we learn how to make fusion bombs. As a matter of fact we can be extremely beneficial to this planet when we learn to alter courses of comets and meteorites away from us. (Taken that a planet actually gives a stardust particle about whether it's blown to pieces or not.)The planet's biosphere has thrived well without humans for thousand of millions of years. I don't know of any Pleistocenic Exxon-Valdez nor Jurassic Chornobyl disasters.


Well, leading by example has always been held in a much higher esteem than whining.. :shrug:It wasn't me who whined that Pandas should be allowed to go extinct.


Undoubtedly true. But tell that to the Chinese government, not to us.I'm calling Beijing right away.


No, because we’re not a piece on the board…..Indeed. The fact that people try to exhibit themselves by patronizing others even in the most inconsequent corners of society (like the internet) shows how much humans are obsolete.

This morning a very close person of mine called me, sobbing, in tears, for her kitty had died. I felt a sorrow that I would never feel for many humans who steal precious oxygen everyday.

[Lahtari]

It wasn't me who whined that Pandas should be allowed to go extinct.

I guess you're right. I should be out there shooting pandas instead of whining in the internet. :D

[Eldritch]

This morning a very close person of mine called me, sobbing, in tears, for her kitty had died. I felt a sorrow that I would never feel for many humans who steal precious oxygen everyday.

Are you Pentti Linkola in disguise? :D

[December]

Are you Pentti Linkola in disguise? :D
LOL!!! He is a tad extreme! :D

[Poltergeist]

From racial wanker to eco-fascist. LOL:D

[W. R.]

I guess you're right. I should be out there shooting pandas instead of whining in the internet. :DYep. And that is the correct answer to the question: no, pandas shouldn't be allowed to go extinct. They should be fruitful and multiply so that we could entertain ourselves by shooting at them again and again. As simple as that.

[December]

From racial wanker to eco-fascist. LOL:D

I'm sure you are speaking about the pornography addict who has a racial fetish for short legged fat women, preferably "assorted balkanoid" (sic) and spends his mid-30s poor lifetime in multiple fora collecting pictures of female users. I know that he is just a marginal caratteriale of society but I didn't know he was going ecofascist. Is that true?

Racial wankers are really weird.

[Absinthe]

The fact that they eat, breath, try to reproduce and care for their young on their own should answer the question rather quickly. :cool:
Which is more than I can say for most of us, actually... :swl

[Brynhild]

Given the behaviour of some of these ahem humans in this topic alone, the pandas are definitely more deserving of living by the minute! :thumb001:

[Absinthe]

Can we keep the shit out of the panda thread? Panda preservation is serious business! :wink

[Aemma]

To the three gentlemen in question, and yes you know who you are: You are going to stop your insane and not to mention inane exchanges right now. Keep it civil and ON TOPIC!! Or take it to PMland. None of us give a crap what you guys did elsewhere. Have some respect for THIS FORUM.

[Aemma]

Saltimbanque! What part of my post up above did you not comprehend? Keep it to topic and show some respect for this forum please.

[Heretik]

Oooo, I can see some inter-forum hostility here. :D

[Absinthe]

And to think the cutest, cuddliest creatures would arouse so much hostility!

http://heroworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/2008_kung_fu_panda_002.jpg

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Yep. And that is the correct answer to the question: no, pandas shouldn't be allowed to go extinct. They should be fruitful and multiply so that we could entertain ourselves by shooting at them again and again. As simple as that.

When the European first saw the Panda they actually did shoot a lot.
Their pelt was a lovely trophy.
One major reason of their demise

[safinator]

Absolutely not.

[Lumi]

Some people just don't understand ecosystems and how delicate they are.
If ANYTHING in an ecosystem becomes extinct, it will affect the rest of the ecosystem and there will be consequences.
For example. When wolves were brought to the edge of extinction, sure the deer population shot up. But the producers in the food web (grass, moss on trees) declined because the deer were eating them all due to lack of natural predators in the ecosystem. So to fix it, they brought wolves back.

Nature can look after Herself. Leave Her alone.

[Kalitas]

I don´t think the pandas are an important part of the ecosystem, I mean they are prey of no other animal, and they only eat bamboo. It´s not like we are going to be threatened by bamboo if all the pandas die:rolleyes:
Even so I think it's worth saving them because they are beautiful part of nature, just like the white man:thumb001:

[Lumi]

They're still part of an ecosystem. They're still needed. All creatures in an ecosystem are needed, however insignificant they may seem.

[The Alchemist]

It's so sad, nobody in this world deserves to die out and become extinct that way :(:(:( I feel too sad when i see those peaceful and lovely animals in TV...

[Teyrn]

No animal should be allowed to go extinct if humans can prevent it but since pandas are the property of the chinks, who let an species of dolphin die indigenous to the Yangtze out, I doubt they'll do much for pandas.

[rashka]

Humans have a responsibility towards their environment, and it is humans who are to be held accountable for the critical situation of the pandas. I think their species should be restored.

Not all humans. Please be specific and make it look like you and I are responsible for such catastrophes.

[CommonSense]

No way. We have to do what we can to save every species. Biodiversity is important.