Conservationist says Panda should be allowed to die

[amitabhishek]

A LEADING conservationist has called on wildlife groups to leave giant pandas alone and let them die out "with a degree of dignity".

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26110216-401,00.html)

His IQ level reminds me of Kanye West :D. Yo Chris, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but let me tell you; you are one of the best numb nut of all time.

[bodyharvester]

species become extinct over time, its how nature goes, unfortunately the cute ones don't always stay, and yes i am well aware that therre is a squirrel still in my avatar :p

[ChrT]

I agree, nature should be allowed to take its course.

The panda has been hunted for thousands of years and did ok, so this obviously has nothing to do with human interference.

[etnlIcarus]

I'm actually hoping this thread gets locked.

The panda has been hunted for thousands of years and did ok, so this obviously has nothing to do with human interference.Too late, the dumb comments have already started.

[JillSwift]

yes i am well aware that therre is a squirrel still in my avatar :pWhat? No there isn't. :P

[hessiess]

I agree, an animal which only eats bamboo is an evolutionery dead end.

[koshatnik]

I'm actually hoping this thread gets locked.
Too late, the dumb comments have already started.

What are you talking about?

It's extremely arrogant of humankind to think that it has some sort of right to preserve every single species of animal. Humankinds life span on this Earth is miniscule, over the intervening time, millions of species have evolved and become extinct. They can't all survive. Mass extinctions have happened before and will happen again. The Earth is in a constant state of flux.

Yeah, sure, its a shame when a species becomes extinct, but others evolve to take their place. We view everything from such an incredibly narrow band of time. I'm with Chris Packham. Things die.

[amitabhishek]

I agree, an animal which only eats bamboo is an evolutionery dead end.

Referring Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Panda);


Two of the panda's most distinctive features, its large size and its round face, are adaptations to its bamboo diet.
Since the animal is adapted to its natural diet; humans have no right to 'let it go'.

What are you talking about?

It's extremely arrogant of humankind to think that it has some sort of right to preserve every single species of animal. Humankinds life span on this Earth is miniscule, over the intervening time, millions of species have evolved and become extinct. They can't all survive. Mass extinctions have happened before and will happen again. The Earth is in a constant state of flux.

Yeah, sure, its a shame when a species becomes extinct, but others evolve to take their place. We view everything from such an incredibly narrow band of time. I'm with Chris Packham. Things die.

Things die but not by annihilating its habitat. If it has to die nature has ways to do that.

[koshatnik]

Things die but not by annihilating its habitat.

What do you call a mass extinction caused by meteor or large volcanic activity? Its happened plenty of times in the past.


If it has to die nature has ways to do that.

How quaint.

Human Beings are part of nature, not seperate. What does it matter if a species dies from habitat loss caused by a petrol company or by a volcano or by a giant tsunami or by a meteor. Result is the same.

[Colonel Kilkenny]

Human Beings are part of nature, not seperate. What does it matter if a species dies from habitat loss caused by a petrol company or by a volcano or by a giant tsunami or by a meteor. Result is the same.

Human beings are part of the nature. Most of the human beings want to save Pandas. Thus nature wants to save Pandas. That's called natural selection and it's part of the process called evolution. Don't fight against evolution, just like you said.

It's always hilarious to see people who has so narrow minds that they can't understand that evolution doesn't necessarily mean death and extinction.

[koshatnik]

Human beings are part of the nature. Most of the human beings want to save Pandas. Thus nature wants to save Pandas. That's called natural selection and it's part of the process called evolution.

It's always hilarious to see people who has so narrow minds that they can't understand that evolution doesn't necessarily mean death and extinction.

Actually, I'm playing devils advocate as I spent alot of my youth working on environmental projects. I'd also be careful about making judgement statements about posters on forums. You don't know them, so you can't judge.

I'm not saying that the environment shouldn't be protected. It should. But if species die, they die. Its happened for millions of years and will continue to. Some species have not evolved in millenia (sharks, dragonflies), some have changed dramatically over shorter periods of time (horses for example). Some with human intervention, some through natural selection.

What irks me, is this hippy dippy nonsense about Nature always being best, and that its always right. Nature is chaos. Its random. Human beings are just another spot of the dice. We arent important, and we dont have a right to save everything, just as we dont have the right to butcher everything either.

Ultimately, there is no answer to this. Just balance.

[suitedaces]

http://newsarse.com/2009/04/07/zoologists-finally-bored-of-saving-frankly-useless-pandas/

[Colonel Kilkenny]

I'd also be careful about making judgement statements about posters on forums. You don't know them, so you can't judge.
I'm not judging anybody. My apologies if you understood it in that way. I'm just saying that people who think that evolution or natural selection equals death are mistaken. Evolution is ongoing process and human beings are part of that process. If human beings decide to save all species from extinction then that is evolution. There aren't any rules regarding evolution or nature which say what should happen and what not, as you said: it's chaos.



I'm not saying that the environment shouldn't be protected. It should. But if species die, they die. Its happened for millions of years and will continue to.

And if species are saved, they are saved. It has happened also for millions of years and will continue to. It doesn't matter who does it (as in the end it's always the nature).



What irks me, is this hippy dippy nonsense about Nature always being best, and that its always right. Nature is chaos. Its random. Human beings are just another spot of the dice. We arent important, and we dont have a right to save everything, just as we dont have the right to butcher everything either.

Nature is always right because it is chaos. However, it's not random at all when we're looking at the bigger picture, it's just so complicated that nobody inside that chaos can understand it.

We humans are just as important as all the other pieces of nature. However, we have developed to a point where we consider ourselves to be somehow above the others and there's nothing wrong about that because it is true. We're the only species to realize our own position in all this. And with great knowledge comes great responsibilities.
And we know our responsibilities, that's why most people want to save Pandas. Those people aren't trying to defeat natural selection or evolution, they're just being part of the nature. There's nothing hippy dippy nonsense in that.

If people are aiming for saving the Pandas, then saving the Pandas is just what the nature "wants" and all this development is just a very natural part of the chaos.

[hobo14]

The panda has been hunted for thousands of years and did ok, so this obviously has nothing to do with human interference.
Oh, obviously....:roll:



I'm actually hoping this thread gets locked.
I think it's on the way there...


I think what Col Kilkenny is trying to say, is that if you want to consider human influenced extinction as part of nature, then you also have to accept human influenced conservation as part of nature.
(Apologies if I got it wrong CK)

[etnlIcarus]

What are you talking about?Ditto. I'm struggling to find the relevance to your reply.


It's extremely arrogant of humankind to think that it has some sort of right to preserve every single species of animal.Strawman.


Humankinds life span on this Earth is miniscule, over the intervening time, millions of species have evolved and become extinct. They can't all survive.okay...


Mass extinctions have happened before and will happen again. The Earth is in a constant state of flux.I'm not sure how we got on the subject of mass extinctions. I imagine you're referring to the consensus that we're in the middle of a mass extinction event. Regardless, nothing you've said warrants your apparent fatalism. "S**t happens", is not an agenda; merely an observation.


Yeah, sure, its a shame when a species becomes extinct, but others evolve to take their place.This is phrased so vaguely, it's borderline meaningless. In terms of natural ecological systems, species are rarely replaced in-time to prevent the collapse of that system.


We view everything from such an incredibly narrow band of time. I'm with Chris Packham. Things die.If this species' endangerment weren't primarily the product of decidedly short-term human activity, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Philosophically, this is much about our own preservation, as that of the panda's; species that cause wide-scale devastation usually aren't all that enduring.


I think what Col Kilkenny is trying to say, is that if you want to consider human influenced extinction as part of nature, then you also have to accept human influenced conservation as part of nature.
(Apologies if I got it wrong CK)Pretty much on the money, although that tangent, in itself, is pretty tragic.

[snowpine]

But they are finger ling-ling good!

[etnlIcarus]

TBH, my motivation is primarily that I want a companda.

[bodyharvester]

What irks me, is this hippy dippy nonsense about Nature always being best, and that its always right. Nature is chaos. Its random. Human beings are just another spot of the dice. We arent important, and we dont have a right to save everything, just as we dont have the right to butcher everything either.

all that nature is chaos stuff reminds me to tell you to read Jurassic Park, the books. evolution and nature and chaos theory all portray the point about nature you just made perfectly.

conservation has its uses, when used to protect an area form damage caused by humans etc, however, some fights just cant be won. you have to know when to accept the fact that it's over. Many animals are going to become extinct, but that doesn't mean something even more wonderful or ferocious wont take its place in a new ecosystem.

EDIT: whats a companda?

[etnlIcarus]

all that nature is chaos stuff reminds me to tell you to read Jurassic Park, the books. evolution and nature and chaos theory all portray the point about nature you just made perfectly.GROAN.


some fights just cant be won. you have to know when to accept the fact that it's over.Riiiight. Could we get some kind of justification for this assertion? Hell, at this point, I'd settle for an appeal to authority - from Michael Crichton, no less.


whats a companda?Something you'd win at one of David Bowie's famous Trivia nights. Bowie always was a trend setter...

[LowSky]

Man is a mass extinction tool, in our few millenia we have been around, we have killed off plenty of species, by huntung them to death. Now we have helped changed the climate and geology enough to force other species out of the artic and jungles, we push wildlife into smaller territories and then scream to kill them when they forage through our garbage.

But try as we might sooner or later species will die, sure we could raise pandas in zoos, or save their genitic material and make test tube pandas, but if the species has no will to live then why should we. The panda has a very limited diet, mates rarely, and when they do are known to kill their own young. It doesn't say much for the species.

[bodyharvester]

GROAN.

Riiiight. Could we get some kind of justification for this assertion? Hell, at this point, I'd settle for an appeal to authority - from Michael Crichton, no less.

he died a few months ago

EDIT: just found out from his site that steven spielberg will be making a movie about him

[etnlIcarus]

:'(


The panda has a very limited diet, mates rarely, and when they do are known to kill their own young. It doesn't say much for the species.Says quite a lot, for a species whose only natural predator was the rare primative humnan. We could learn a thing or two.

[hoppipolla]

And if species are saved, they are saved. It has happened also for millions of years and will continue to. It doesn't matter who does it (as in the end it's always the nature).

Oo I LOVE this point of view! It's controversial but really clever :)

And I dunno I think we have probably treated pandas like crap for long enough to warrant making it up to them lol (this is an assumption... but it's probably true right?)

[MaxIBoy]

I'm smelling astroturf. Is anyone else picking up on this?

[etnlIcarus]

Sounds like a good 'nuff excuse. Lock plz.

[moster]

I bet some snobs pay big bucks that few of them be killed so they can eat it. Hey, it is going to die anyway policy.

We seen gorillas being killed because hands, tigers for fur, elephants for fangs. Why we should save some? Well maybe because we exterminate other.

[hoppipolla]

I'm smelling astroturf. Is anyone else picking up on this?

oo what's an astroturf? The original comment?

[Chronon]

I agree, nature should be allowed to take its course.

The panda has been hunted for thousands of years and did ok, so this obviously has nothing to do with human interference.

That's a total non-sequitur. You do realize that "human interference" includes a lot more than just hunting, right?

[chucky chuckaluck]

as harsh as it may be to say, the panda might be a more important symbol were it to vanish.

[handy]

My cousin in law, developed a system to be able to resurrect extinct species. With the provision that you have something from the species which provides the DNA blueprint to enable the process.

Even though these days it would be a very expensive process; I always hold the hope that it will be decades & not centuries, before humanity invests in putting back all of the species that it has caused to become extinct.

Of course firstly humanity has to survive itself long enough...

[SomeGuyDude]

I have to admit, I find it hilarious the number of people who think eradicating a species is no big deal, but saving a species is a waste of time. To me, that's one of those things that's indicative of the kind of person you are.

Considering ours is a species that spent a while hunting and killing every animal we could find for no other reason than "it was there", and currently we bulldoze over thousands more, I fail to see why trying to save a few is considered such a bad idea.

Not to mention, from a strictly scientific perspective, letting ANY species go extinct is a tragedy. It's a piece of our planet that vanishes forever.

[hkgonra]

If an animal had been hunted to extinction by wolves or bears would it be natural then ? If it had died from elephants trampling its natural food source to death would that be ok ?
Humans are predators just like wolves or bears.

[etnlIcarus]

Edit: scrap that.

[handy]

Humanities' intelligence is still too small to be able to fully understand the implications to the biosphere, that the extinction of so much flora & fauna at the hand of humanity is having & will have in the future.

It would seem that it is the furthest thing from most people's thoughts that we (humanity) too rely on the planetary biosphere for our survival.

Most people seem to think that what they do has no real effect on the future of the planetary biosphere, or humanities future in general.

Therefore we are showing ourselves to be, on the whole, a very irresponsible & quite obviously stupid species.

I guess due to those characteristics we will make it very hard for our species to survive extinction, or at least mass population depletion.

[Dimitriid]

Human beings are part of the nature. Most of the human beings want to save Pandas. Thus nature wants to save Pandas. That's called natural selection and it's part of the process called evolution. Don't fight against evolution, just like you said.

It's always hilarious to see people who has so narrow minds that they can't understand that evolution doesn't necessarily mean death and extinction.

Not really. The part of us that makes us part of nature, pure instinct, would kill and eat a panda even if it was the last one on earth.

I don't mind if someone tries to save pandas, but I dislike this particular branch of argument that conservationists often use: Attempting to save a species is a rational process, we are the only confirmed species capable of it, and its this same rational mind that created unsustainable conditions for many species to begin with or outright exterminated them in mass.

Appealing to some sense of belonging because we are "part of nature" is a misleading argument aiming at manipulating an emotional response instead of a rational one. We are most certainly NOT part of nature, we work against it in fact and that precisely is the problem with exterminating other species, and the only way to save any species ( if that is what is desired ).

[Dimitriid]

I have to admit, I find it hilarious the number of people who think eradicating a species is no big deal, but saving a species is a waste of time. To me, that's one of those things that's indicative of the kind of person you are.


Again this always devolves into name calling and emotional manipulation. There is no need for that: offer a rational argument explaining the advantages of saving a species ok? If the rational argument is a good one most people will agree with it.

Avoiding a rational discussion of the subject only makes it seems like you are afraid of an actual debate and instead deflect it to an emotional, guilt ridden tantrum which in the end only weakens your cause instead of helping it, since the rational arguments to attempt to save species are pretty solid and don't need this drama.

[bruno9779]

I'm actually hoping this thread gets locked.
Too late, the dumb comments have already started.

for once i agree with you....

[issih]

You've all totally missed the point of the original comment.

He was stating that the panda takes huge amount of resources to conserve (because it is very hard to breed in captivity and is a "weak species" generally). Those same resources could be used to save a far greater number of more "viable" threatened species, that stand a far greater chance once reintroduced into the wild. Those species, however, will not see the investment because they are not cute or indeed not the symbol of the WWF.

From a straight biodiversity argument he is utterly 100% right, the rule should be save as many as you can, not save the ones that make good soft toys.

Oh and for the record,I love pandas, but nonetheless, the argument is entirely sensible, and deserves discussion outside of pointless mud slinging.

[etnlIcarus]

Not really. The part of us that makes us part of nature, pure instinct, would kill and eat a panda even if it was the last one on earth.

I don't mind if someone tries to save pandas, but I dislike this particular branch of argument that conservationists often use: Attempting to save a species is a rational process, we are the only confirmed species capable of it, and its this same rational mind that created unsustainable conditions for many species to begin with or outright exterminated them in mass.

Appealing to some sense of belonging because we are "part of nature" is a misleading argument aiming at manipulating an emotional response instead of a rational one. We are most certainly NOT part of nature, we work against it in fact and that precisely is the problem with exterminating other species, and the only way to save any species ( if that is what is desired ).Christ, can we all agree that everyone is wrong and get off this. Pointless. Bloody. Tangent. The argument over whether we're a 'part of nature' is the malformed cousin of the free will debate and it's equally as aimless.


Again this always devolves into name calling and emotional manipulation. There is no need for that: offer a rational argument explaining the advantages of saving a species ok? If the rational argument is a good one most people will agree with it.

Avoiding a rational discussion of the subject only makes it seems like you are afraid of an actual debate and instead deflect it to an emotional, guilt ridden tantrum which in the end only weakens your cause instead of helping it, since the rational arguments to attempt to save species are pretty solid and don't need this drama.The irony here is your exaggeration over the severity of SomeGuyDude's somewhat dodgy conduct, undermines your point.


You've all totally missed the point of the original comment.Err, no. We've just utterly ignored the the original comment. There's a difference.

[handy]

If an animal had been hunted to extinction by wolves or bears would it be natural then ? If it had died from elephants trampling its natural food source to death would that be ok ?
Humans are predators just like wolves or bears.

That argument just does not work.

It is not due to our hunting or predatory behavior that we are causing so much extinction.

It is very largely due to our complacent consumer lifestyles.

The extinction that we cause we are not even aware of. It is very few of us that actually personally go & kill the animal or the fish or whatever other form of life that we have caused or are in the process of causing to become extinct. Let alone the flora that we are doing the same to.

Few of us have any idea of the results of our actions with regard to the biosphere.

The prevalent consumer lifestyles are very much supported by broad acre mono cultural farming practices, which often combine large scale clearing of natural vegetation (which has a marked effect on the natural flora & fauna) the use of chemical inorganic fertilizers & pest control agents.

So many people are supported by the farming of beef, mutton, pig, all of which require huge amounts of water, feed & chemicals for just one serving on a plate for a single person. Depending on the type of farming as to just how much land was needed to be cleared for each animal.

There is a lot more to be said about the negative environmental effects of mans current farming practices, which have mostly been made possible due to the cheap energy provided by the finite resource of oil.

Now, the next thing that we do that is nothing like what hunters & predators do, because it IS what consumers do, is consume the Earth's renewable & non-renewable resources in a linear fashion. A fashion that makes big holes here, produces lots of toxins as the resources are being refined, more toxins as the refined resources are being manufactured into something for the consumer, more toxins as they are being packaged, transported, placed in warehouses, transported to other warehouses, transported to retail outlets that have been built out of mostly finite & some renewable resources, sold to a consumer, transported home, used, then disposed of, where the consumable item lands in a pile (if we are lucky) where it may be recycled, or it may (depending on what it is made out of) just get buried & add to what is the human toxic buildup of the Earth's biosphere in that particular fashion.

In combination, all of these processes & more, have managed: Due to deforestation, over fishing, the hugely complex variety of ways we have found to pollute the biosphere with a huge array of toxins; whilst so often doing nothing but sitting in our homes filled with consumer items, consuming processed & packaged food & watching TV; between when we commute to & from our place of work in an office, retail store, building site or whatever. We have managed to cause an enormous number of species to become extinct, & we have a huge amount on the close to extinction list.

By 2050, it is predicted that WE will have caused 50% of all animals to have become extinct!

That is not happening because we are consciously hunting or being predators. That is happening because our lifestyle is poisonous to the planet & consumes everything that we think we can profit from one way or another.

This is NOT the lifestyle of a hunter/predator. This is the lifestyle of people that are living off the wealth of the oil age. We are not hunters or predators, beyond doing that at the local mall.

[moster]

Humans are predators just like wolves or bears.

To you is natural when rich old slob who had to be helped to hold a gun, shot down deer for his horns?!

Predator?!

[megamania]

To you is natural when rich old slob who had to be helped to hold a gun, shot down deer for his horns?!

Predator?!
Since they do it, it's natural. Bear with it.

Mind you: I'm a vegetarian.

[dmizer]

I think this thread has run its course.

Thank you all for participating.