Should pandas be allowed to go extinct?

**~~Eldritch~~** · 12-02-2009, 12:29 PM

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?

More here.

**The Lawspeaker** · 12-02-2009, 12:41 PM

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** · 12-02-2009, 12:42 PM

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** · 12-02-2009, 12:47 PM

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** · 12-02-2009, 01:38 PM

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.

Originally Posted by Allenson

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** · 12-02-2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

**anonymaus** · 12-02-2009, 03:32 PM

Whoever wrote that should be allowed to go extinct.

**Psychonaut** · 12-02-2009, 05:47 PM

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! 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** · 12-02-2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by 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! 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?