Toribash
We should spend the resources on helping the poverty and other problems in humanity. Gaia will save what needs to be saved, basically stop poachers, give them a job at a bamboo rehabilitation service or something. So it benefits the pandas and the poor in need of money.
Besides, they can evolve or adapt to eat something else, maybe even poachers themselves. #IRONY
ShhhMikes Moderated Message:
I need big juicy celery sticks ;3
Originally Posted by Swaves View Post
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.

Go argue with the Chinese about how they should spend their money, there is over $ 75 trillion worth of cash and valubles circulating the planet I highly doubt a few million spent purely by the chinese is really gonna make or break poverty.

Really we should save them because we should. Humans have destroyed enough land and killed enough species that maybe, just maybe we can redeem ourselves by saving one species.

Let's just save the cute lovable useless fuckers, eh??

[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
I agree with neko.
No one saved the dodo, passenger pigeon, quagga, wallaby, mink or Stellar's sea cow. There is so much money in the world that the only reason there is poverty is because some people have way too much. A few million spent on saving a species is like dropping a grain of sand in a hay stack in the Pacific.
Save the pandas
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
|Replay|ORMO|
yeah, they're pretty bad at existing and it's probably a waste of time and money to save them
I think, they should live on. Why Kill off an animal that is doing nothing but be awesome everyday of it's life.

On a serious note, over time more and more animals will become endangered. With Global Warming or what ever over a long period of time the climate everywhere would have changed. So why not keep these guys around, we as humans should preserve wild life.
Originally Posted by Dscigs View Post
No one saved the dodo, passenger pigeon, quagga, wallaby, mink

Wow, after seeing this list i realized more that human is the main cause of animal extinction
In my opinion, Panda should be preserved
They don't actually serve any straightforward meaningful benefits, but letting them extinct is not a wise option either
A lot of species have died, we could not revive them to existence, but the least that we can do is to preserve what left
Imagine, if they're extinct, and some more 'species-extinction-related-issue' occur in future, and lets say about a few hundred of other species die
I feel poor for the next generation not knowing about existence of many magnificent animals
Nature has it own selection and see which species survive, but destroying their habitat and see if they still live is not a 'nature selection', it's basically human fault, and we should rectify this
Even if human won't take care of them any longer in conservatory, i believe they can thrive in their small limited habitat

I mean, look at that cute fucker
Please bring back Organiζations board
An alternate view is that humans are part or nature, so if the local environment of an animal changes because the trees are gone or because the ice is gone, even if its due to humans its still nature and in nature animals go extinct.

On the other hand scientists say we are in another mass extinction partlydue to global warming, which is partly due to human activity and if we are causing it we should stop.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
An alternate view is that humans are part or nature, so if the local environment of an animal changes because the trees are gone or because the ice is gone, even if its due to humans its still nature and in nature animals go extinct.

I'm sorry, but that logic is flawed.
Firstly, the human species is not an important construct of this world, in fact, it is the exact opposite. Nothing would suffer if we vanished. We are the reason this planet is dying, and you only have to walk outside your door to see that. Greenhouse gases, deforestation, the meat industry, urban development, etc. There is nothing natural about any of that, however, I don't want to turn this into a 'climate change/how humans are killing this planet' debate.
tl;dr: Just because we're a part of this world, doesn't mean that all our actions are acceptable, or a part of nature.

The way I see it, if something bad can be prevented, then we must prevent it. As humans, it is our moral obligation to sustain this world's resources, that includes animals.

Remember, the panda's numbers are on an up-rise. It's not like the money is going to waste.
Originally Posted by MintCat View Post
I'm sorry, but that logic is flawed.
Firstly, the human species is not an important construct of this world, in fact, it is the exact opposite. Nothing would suffer if we vanished. We are the reason this planet is dying, and you only have to walk outside your door to see that. Greenhouse gases, deforestation, the meat industry, urban development, etc. There is nothing natural about any of that, however, I don't want to turn this into a 'climate change/how humans are killing this planet' debate.
tl;dr: Just because we're a part of this world, doesn't mean that all our actions are acceptable, or a part of nature.

The way I see it, if something bad can be prevented, then we must prevent it. As humans, it is our moral obligation to sustain this world's resources, that includes animals.

Remember, the panda's numbers are on an up-rise. It's not like the money is going to waste.

Your logic is flawed, not his. Humans are the product of evolution, which is a natural principal of life.

The planet is not dying by any means, and you need to really stop marathoning 2012/the day after tomorrow and getting all your life lessons from them.

Life is something that inherently consumes energy, be it from the sun, from other lifeforms, or otherwise. What humans are doing is perfectly reasonable, and there is no reason for it to stop. If you don't want to be part of the human race, and don't want to consume energy, feel free to be a vegan/commit sudoku and die due to a lack of essential nutrients/instantly.

The Panda's only contribution to life right now is the fact that it is cute to humans. Nothing else. Whether that is worth protecting or not is a discussion people need to have, as a significant chunk of resources is presently allocated to their survival while there are more pressing matters at hand. Obviously the matters aren't pressing enough to make it impossible, but let's be realistic here. The real concern here for me is, what would happen to these protected species should humans be unable to support them for whatever reason? Hundreds of millions of species have died out entirely in the history of life, for various reasons. Human actions are an extension of the evolutionary process.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
Human actions are an extension of the evolutionary process.

Another consequence of this evolutionary process is human morality. The reason why funds have been diverted to supporting endangered species is because we humans feel a little guilty about making them endangered in the first place. I suspect that whenever the guilt runs dry, so too will the money.