Toribash
Original Post
Giant Pandas - Should they be allowed to die out?

Back in 2009, Chris Packham, wildlife expert for the BBC, made the controversial statement, "Giant pandas should be allowed to die out". He believes that the animal is "not strong enough to survive on its own" and that "the millions spent preserving them could be better spent elsewhere". He also argued that all animals that are bred in captivity for later release is pointless because there is not enough of their own habitat to sustain them.

Many experts and scientists argued against Packham's statements, one such being Mark Wright, who argued, "Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat. It’s like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean.”

On the WWF website, the latest figures (2014) showed that there were approximately 1,864 pandas left in the wild. You don't need to be a conservationist or scientist to know that that's an extremely low number for any animal. However, past figures show that the population is on the rise, with a mass survey showing that there were 1000-1100 pandas between 1974-1977, and by 2004 the number had risen to 1600.

So, what do you think?
Should pandas be allowed to die out so that we can focus on helping animals that have more of a chance of survival, or is it our responsibility to look after the animals that make our planet that much more diverse and interesting?
I believe that it is our responsibility to look after them if we ourselves are causing their extinction. As the most developed race/animal on the planet, I also believe that we have the responsibility to help if we can. Kind of like a parent. Money is not a factor in comparison to an animal going extinct. There is also the God complex side to this as well, but I believe the pandas survival outweighs that. I think it is necessary.
We've killed off so many other species the least we could do is keep one alive that doesn't really alter anything alive or dead. Not much human time or money goes into keeping them alive so why not?

It's not as if we can only focus on saving one species there's billions of us I'm pretty sure we can try to save as many as we can.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash
[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
we're the cause for them going this close to extinction, i don't think we should let them die. It's our responsibility to take care of earth and its inhabbitants
R.I.P Sean (bobsanders147) i'll miss you man, we all love you and miss you.
Well, to be perfectly fair, as cruel as it may seem, if a creature is not fit to live in a changing environment, which obviously requires some catalyst for change, be it human or otherwise, it isn't meant to survive. On the other hand, the counterargument for that is that the way it can survive might be anything, even something like human interference, much like how society exists to guarantee survival and a large gene pool for the human race as a whole.

That said, I realize how cruel that is and it would be better if that weren't the case, but unfortunately it is, and that is how evolution works. In short, it requires extensive deliberation from people far more qualified than us to discuss it. There's a lot to touch on, such as what their presence offers to this now multi-species protective layer of human society among other things.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by spitfire123ism View Post
we're the cause for them going this close to extinction, i don't think we should let them die. It's our responsibility to take care of earth and its inhabbitants

it's not our responsibility, it's mainly moral obligation.
we should save them if they know they're endangered, want to be saved or ask to be, and i dont think that's going to happen. they dont really serve any function or benefit anything, if they're not smart enough to keep themselves alive then that's too bad for them

SAVE THE SAVING FOR THE PEOPLE PEOPLE
Originally Posted by Augans View Post
it's not our responsibility, it's mainly moral obligation.
we should save them if they know they're endangered, want to be saved or ask to be, and i dont think that's going to happen. they dont really serve any function or benefit anything, if they're not smart enough to keep themselves alive then that's too bad for them

SAVE THE SAVING FOR THE PEOPLE PEOPLE

I was going to say the exact same thing.

We could be spending millions of dollars on more useful things that massive black and white coloured bears.
We shouldn't let them die out.
Animal variety rapidly drops, mainly caused by human activities.
The earth is okay until the industrial revolution came. It changed the earth climate.
probably the earth will die out soon so ye
:D
Originally Posted by Swaves View Post
I was going to say the exact same thing.

We could be spending millions of dollars on more useful things that massive black and white coloured bears.

Heartless as always <3

But it'd all depend on where the money lands.

The money we (as in humans) spend on pandas doesn't vanish. It's spent, and is still in the economy. It may be for people who work for pandas (they pay taxes, about a third returns to the state), some is spent on the forrest up in the mountains, some is spent on research. No matter how it's spent, money is getting paid.

The origin of the money is another question. Is it contribution from individuals? Is it taxes?

Can we as humanity gain something in the end from helping pandas?

Economy is a difficult and wide subject. Analyzing and studying should come before the judgement.



Had massive brainfreeze when I wrote this, lots of words I could've chosen better. 'Bleh

Peace
Owner of Fred
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Originally Posted by Swepples View Post
Heartless as always <3

But it'd all depend on where the money lands.

The money we (as in humans) spend on pandas doesn't vanish. It's spent, and is still in the economy. It may be for people who work for pandas (they pay taxes, about a third returns to the state), some is spent on the forrest up in the mountains, some is spent on research. No matter how it's spent, money is getting paid.

The origin of the money is another question. Is it contribution from individuals? Is it taxes?

Can we as humanity gain something in the end from helping pandas?

Economy is a difficult and wide subject. Analyzing and studying should come before the judgement.



Had massive brainfreeze when I wrote this, lots of words I could've chosen better. 'Bleh

Peace

I might we could use the money spend on these panda's for people living in poverty, or even help find solutions to the problems these panda's face, not that we shouldn't help the panda's live, just that there's issues that have greater importance etc.