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.
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.
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.
“It's gonna cost money” is a pretty bad argument. Money is not a natural resource. Money is a human made construct that does not get destroyed when it's spent.
You may argue that preserving pandas costs resources such as work-time, land and whatever else it requires.
That argument would be pretty bad as well, however. There are many things humans do that do not directly contribute to our own well-being and survival.
If you use that argument you might as well argue against spending time and money on videogames, because if you come from that perspective they would be a waste of resources as well. ;o
Pandas have the same value to humans that movies and videogames do, probably a whole lot less. Money is a human-made construct that represents something, as for the monetary system to work, everyone agrees that they are not simply trading colored paper for things. Money has value, regardless of how much of an existential anti-human crisis you're in. The problem is, do enough people care about the Panda? Is it worth keeping a species that wouldn't survive naturally alive through artificial means?
Using the theory of evolution as moral indicator is a fallacy. An appeal to nature is incorrect because something does not become morally correct just because it can be found in nature.
Who cares? There is no morality to letting a species go extinct. No one would give a fuck if it was the ugly ass blobfish or something, so why do people care about the panda? Because it's cute. "It's cute, so we should save it" isn't a very good moral indicator either.
The only good argument, in my opinion, would be one that proves that keeping pandas alive actually does more damage than it does good.
The harm in this case is resource allocation. That money and those idiots working towards the benefit of these animals could very easily be doing the same for people, but I guess homeless people aren't very cute and aren't worth helping. Do you know how horribly understaffed homeless shelters are? Do you realize how little help people who desperately need it get? Have some humanity.
Pandas are a very popular species so there is a demand for keeping them alive. As long as people are interested in their survival, let them provide the resources and work hours, what's the harm?
No one's preventing them from doing what they're doing. This is a discussion to determine whether or not it's worth it to keep going.
"The Panda's only contribution to life right now is the fact that it is cute to humans. Nothing else."
Pandas are more than a cultural icon. They play a crucial role in the forests by spreading seeds and contributing to greater growth of vegetation. By keeping the panda alive, we're sustaining the biodiversity, which is important.
You must perceive other animals as other nations. If one falls, there could be a catastrophic collapse, meaning other nations are affected. Everything is linked and has a greater role than you think.
There are 1826 giant pandas in the wild right now, according to the WWF website. There have been hundreds of millions of similar genetically weak species before in history that have been wiped out. Life on earth is still kicking, and building on top of their deaths, humanity has reached what is presumably the peak of evolution for now. What can 1826 giant pandas do for the ecosystem? How do 1826 pandas contribute to the greater growth of vegetation? Are no other species fit to gets seeds stuck to their fur? You're using all these buzzwords like biodiversity without thinking about the actual meaning of them. Why is saving 1826 pandas making the ecosystem more biodiverse as you put it? Why is it a good thing keeping something that would otherwise die on what can essentially be summed up as life support? Genetic inferiority is the reason for the Panda's situation, not people.
"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."
No, the life on earth is dying, and we rely on that life for our own survival.
You think I'm being dramatic, but it's a subject of real importance.
The earth is not dying. You are wrong. We have decisions to make, and saving the panda isn't one that's going to somehow make humanity's insatiable need for energy any lesser.
"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."
That doesn't even make sense.
"Human actions are an extension of the evolutionary process."
Evolution also gave us high intelligence and morality. Take a hint, it's our job to use that gift.
Why do you think people have been supporting countless species of animals for this long? People value life for very good reasons, but I disagree with the examples you guys are using. The panda is not an important part of the ecosystem no matter what way you want to twist it, but it is cute, and people like cute things. I'd gladly pay money to support the panda solely for that reason. If the reason presented to me was the reasons you've presented so far, i'd sooner leave a panda alone with a wheelbarrow of money.
tl;dr yes, I think people should help pandas survive, but because they're cute, not because seeds stick to their fur.
No, he's saying that the sense of morality in not supporting the survival of pandas is really twisted when you realize that we spend shittons of money on entertainment than in actually getting threatened specieis helped.
P1: "Don't support pandas because they cost money"
P2: "Yea, think about that next time you buy a playstation, you selfish..."