Poll: Conservationism - Opinions?

[Saladfork]

Let's consider the Panda.

The panda is a species that has overspecialized to an environment that is rapidly disappearing. Pandas have to eat a good 30 pounds of bamboo every day in order to live even in their sedentary lifestyle, and are very difficult to breed because they literally refuse to mate.

...Why is the panda worth conserving?

The panda has become a sort of poster image for conservationism, a movement I disagree with on a fundamental level, so in order to present my arguements I've decided to use the same species.

1. Because they're natural
Some would argue that every species is worth conserving because they are 'natural'. I would first question why being natural is grounds enough to justify attempting to conserve a species (It didn't stop us with smallpox) but second, I would say that conservation is completely unnatural. One of the most fundamental rules of Darwinism is that nonspecification is the key to survival; The panda is far too specialized to its' environment, and as a result, will inevitably die out when it changes (and it will change, the only question is when). All we're doing is prolonging the period of decline for the pandas, and even in that we're not doing a very good job.

2. Because we don't have a right to dictate which species live and which die
My first argument against this again has to do with smallpox, i.e. that any species that presents a threat to humanity must be driven to extinction for our own safety if possible. Pandas, of course, pose no such threat, but my second argument is related to the 'natural' one in that natural selection will always work to change species and cause them to adapt to new conditions. Literally the only thing people are doing to any environment is changing the selective pressures, which in turn result in adaptation by the local species (or invasion by foreign ones better suited to the new conditions). We are doing nothing that hasn't already been done countless times in Earth's history, and every time before, either an an existing species has changed or a new species has arisin altogether to fit the new ecological niches presented in the changed environment.

3. Because species that are in danger of going extinct now could possibly help humanity in some way in the future
I have to admit that this argument does have merit, but at the same time, we have to decide whether it's worth the potential risk of losing a biological resource to develop n area for settlement or agriculture, and in the vast majority of cases, the answer (from a humanist perspective) is going to be a definite yes. In some cases, such as the potential extinction of a species that, say, takes a lot of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, in the short term (i.e. several generations) will likely result in negative effectos for us, but then at the same time that particular ecological niche would be wide open, with a large amount of CO2 available for exploitation by other species. While the continued existence of the first species ight be preferable, it certainly isn't of "end of the world" priority.

So what do you guys think? Poll's up top if you somehow missed it, and I split the answers into motivation as well as position.

 

[Saladfork]

Sorry about the shameless bump, but I'd really like to see other people's opinions on this.

 

[kiwi_poo]

The panda is nearly extinct and basically can't do anything without our help. It's sort of a coma patient, I guess (I tend to make strange analogies). These species are redundant in my opinion and we should let nature and Darwinism 'do its thing'.
However, species like the whale (well, okay it's actually an order, but you know what I mean), which can survive without us, should be protected, as simply staying out of their way usually doesn't amount to large economic loss.

Only if a species has dwindled to the point where it can no longer survive without human interference should we allow them to go extinct.

 

[Saladfork]

The panda is nearly extinct and basically can't do anything without our help. It's sort of a coma patient, I guess (I tend to make strange analogies). These species are redundant in my opinion and we should let nature and Darwinism 'do its thing'.
However, species like the whale (well, okay it's actually an order, but you know what I mean), which can survive without us, should be protected, as simply staying out of their way usually doesn't amount to large economic loss.

Only if a species has dwindled to the point where it can no longer survive without human interference should we allow them to go extinct.

Fair enough, the panda is a pretty extreme example, and I'm not necessarily saying we should go out of our way to try to drive a species to extinction if we don't stand to gain much from it. I was mostly talking about species that are for all intents and purposes doomed without human action, or conversely by human action that could benefit us to a substantial degree.

 

[Saladfork]

I would say that conservation is completely unnatural. One of the most fundamental rules of Darwinism is that nonspecification is the key to survival; The panda is far too specialized to its' environment, and as a result, will inevitably die out when it changes (and it will change, the only question is when). All we're doing is prolonging the period of decline for the pandas, and even in that we're not doing a very good job.

Can you point me to 'the fundamental rules of Darwinism'?
Unnatural... I have never understood the natural/unnatural argument. It doesn't matter. We're natural too. Something being natural or unnatural doesn't make it good or bad. But fact is... we've fucked up the habitat of the panda.

First off,
http://www.edquest.ca/component/content/article/131
This is a grade school learning resource, so it's all pretty easy to follow.

Now, I agree completely that the natural/unnatural argument is pretty stupid; I was just using the reasoning someone in favour of conservationism might use in order to show that that line of thinking does not necessarily lead to support of the movement.


We don't have the right? We fucked up their environment first. So, okay, we don't have the right to decide which animals die. But we caused them to die. So does that give us the task to 'repair the damage'?[/quote]

Building on what you said before, human beings are animals like any other. We, like any other animal, kill other animals either through predation or outcompetition, both of which being things we do exceedingly well. If a new breed of wolf emerged from somewhere and started invading wolf territory, outcompeting the native wolves, would we stop that? How? By killing off the new breed? If we decide that we ned to preserve every species we can, in situations like this, we're going to be hard-pressed to accomplish our goal.

What I'm saying is that life on Earth can and will adapt to pressure put on it by human beings just as well as it does from any other pressure. Any "damage" we cause will eventually spawn a new ecosystem; Do we havethe right to remove that in order to preserve the old one?


I don't understand the reasoning. Protecting the panda = risking losing biological resources to develop area for settlement or agriculture = humanist answer is definite yes. Okay. I don't understand you.

Panda doesn't absorb CO2=panda should die?[/quote]

Panda doesn't do anything useful = We have no reason to prolong its' existence.
I'm not saying we should go out and kill the pandas ourselves, what I'm saying is is that the pandas are going to die out on their own.


We, the human race, are insanely powerful on this earth. Species are going extinct way faster than they evolve right now. We should try to preserve as many as possible, especially highly complex animals like pandas.[/quote]

Right now, yes. Human industry and development is growing at a rapid pace, and at present, the species who are unable to deal with that are dying out quite quickly. Once it becomes a constant, though, once it stop changing at such a fast rate (such as through finalizing industrialization of 3rd world countries) then the remaining species will adapt. It's like a little mini-extinction event.

 

[BlackStar42]

Pretty much the only reason people care about the panda is because it looks cute. If it was a spider, no-one would give a shit.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

We are responsible for the animals loosing their habitat, we should mark off land that is for conservation. I want my children to see as many animals as I have.

 

[similar.squirrel]

This is more or less my current line of study, and I believe that endangered species ought to be saved purely for their aesthetic value. They're neat little things, and took a long time to evolve. It's like people selling chicken nuggets on eBay because they look like Lincoln's head, except a lot less retarded.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

This is more or less my current line of study, and I believe that endangered species ought to be saved purely for their aesthetic value. They're neat little things, and took a long time to evolve. It's like people selling chicken nuggets on eBay because they look like Lincoln's head, except a lot less retarded.

Haha, thanks man i needed a laugh today.
I've never felt compelled to quote for truth before but yeah QFT.

OT: Yeah i think pandas and other endangered species should always be preserved if possible simply because i think their unique genetic material is something precious that would be a real shame if it were to be lost when we could have done something.

Although Pandas aren't really the best example given that they're dying out because they're too lazy to have sex with each other -.-

 

[Saladfork]

First off,
http://www.edquest.ca/component/content/article/131
This is a grade school learning resource, so it's all pretty easy to follow.

Look, I know how evolution works, but Googling "non specification is the key to survival" doesn't give me any results.

I worded it a little differently than how it's usually said. The link I gave earlier mentions how overspecialization results in extinction when the conditions the species specialized to meet change.


Not every species. Not every mutation of the fruit fly needs this protection. But fact is, a panda is a unique result of long, tedious evolution. It's the difference between "Protect those paint stains" and "Protect this masterpiece from the 17th century". While a panda is more like a masterpiece from one million years ago, 'created' in dozens of millions of years.[/quote]
It took about as long for the fruit fly to evolve to its' current form as the panda did, biologically speaking. As for complexity, that can be rather difficult to argue. An insects wing is the result of thousands upon thousands of generations of genetic drift and microevolution, and the same could be said for any other species on the planet. What makes the panda, or the Mona Lisa, different from other examples is human interpretation. We've assigned an arbitrary value to the panda based on aesthetics and pity. Yes, we've taken their habitat. We competed with them for it and won by a ridiculously huge margin, as we always do.


By the way, WTF is useful?[/quote]
Useful to humans, I mean. Even if I didn't believe humans were useful to one another, though, I'd admit that my arguments are morally invalid when talking about something sapient.


That's impossible. We've already fucked up their environment. I can't possibly steal your food and then say "Well, Saladfork died on his own!".
[/quote]
Okay, yeah, "on their own" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that pandas are too overspecialized to their niche that when we come in and outcompete them, they are incapable of adapting either to shift niches or to challenge us for the one it already has.


I mean, I don't even know in what country you live and we're instantly communicating about saving animals in China. That wasn't possible in this easy and cheap way two decades ago. A mobile phone from 2010 is fat and ugly in 2012. How can 2212 possibly be "constant"?
With great power comes great responsibility. We're responsible for pandas because we've fucked up their environment. We can't possibly say that we're above Darwinian laws (our urge to preserve is Darwinian too, letting animals go extinct is not the only option that is natural/Darwinian), f*ck nature up and then say that we should let "Darwin do it's work".
[/quote]
A good point; There's no guarentee that the environment we create through our actions will be constant or will shift again due to other actions, I'll concede that.

I suppose that if we were to attempt to create stable ecosystems, it would be best to keep our impact on it consistant, at least, but I have no idea if that would even be possible.

 

[Gatx]

This is more or less my current line of study, and I believe that endangered species ought to be saved purely for their aesthetic value. They're neat little things, and took a long time to evolve. It's like people selling chicken nuggets on eBay because they look like Lincoln's head, except a lot less retarded.

That is an awful reason to support conservationism, and it is also awful that I can't think of a better logical reason (at least when taking a big picture outlook).

Building on what you said before, human beings are animals like any other. We, like any other animal, kill other animals either through predation or outcompetition, both of which being things we do exceedingly well. If a new breed of wolf emerged from somewhere and started invading wolf territory, outcompeting the native wolves, would we stop that? How? By killing off the new breed? If we decide that we ned to preserve every species we can, in situations like this, we're going to be hard-pressed to accomplish our goal.

In that sense that there's not necessarily an argument against conservationism either. If you were to consider human beings as just a cog in the greater "circle of life," what if it's just in us to want to conserve these animals? It could lead to some kind of weird symbiosis, or maybe more like reverse parasitic relationship (we'll take of you at our expense and you're going to like it!) Something like with house cats.

 

[Saladfork]

In that sense that there's not necessarily an argument against conservationism either. If you were to consider human beings as just a cog in the greater "circle of life," what if it's just in us to want to conserve these animals? It could lead to some kind of weird symbiosis, or maybe more like reverse parasitic relationship (we'll take of you at our expense and you're going to like it!) Something like with house cats.

I'm cool with mutualism; if a species has a positive impact on us, it makes sense for us to want to preserve it. Even house cats, though the biological benefit is heavily skewed in their favour, still help us in some ways, i.e. pest control or just companionship, and that's good enough for me.

...I doubt you'd get much companionship from a panda.

 

[scorptatious]

Pretty much the only reason people care about the panda is because it looks cute. If it was a spider, no-one would give a shit.

Spiders can be cute too...

:3

I'm not sure where I should stand in the whole Panda issue. To me, pandas are pretty interesting animals. It would be a shame for them to die out. At the same time though, if what people say about them not being able to adapt are true and we truly are just wasting money and time keeping them alive, well, I guess we should let nature do it's thing...

 

[manic_depressive13]

Pandas are fascinating creatures and they shouldn't have to go extinct just because humans are retarded pieces of crap who shamelessly destroy everything in their wake.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Panda's (as cute and awesome as they are) Are FARRR beyond our help, and this time it wasn't even our fault that they're so up shit creek.

Okay, picture a Panda eating, what is it eating? Bamboo right? Well, yeah, they do eat bamboo. But Panda's are 100% carnivorous. They only eat bamboo because they are too fat, and too lazy to hunt, and bamboo is wonderful for not... y'know, running away. Their digestive tracts as a result of all this food that they aren't supposed to eat, is a freaking mess, and it causes real problems later in the Panda's life, they die really early guiz... It'd be like if a human just ate paper all his/her life.

And, as if that wasn't enough, it is a real fucking mission to get them to mate. They just... Don't! Chinese keepers are doing some pretty extreme things to get them to mate, and help quell the speed in which they are declining. But they just don't want to, or just can't!

Should it really be our responsibility to help with the pandas OWN troubles? It'd be like sending the French to Japan to help out their birthrate. Is it really within our rights to do so?

Well, yes, I think we should help out. But at the end of the day, they are heading for extinction. It's inescapable.

But you never know, if you look at it from one point of view, you could argue that Panda's have a very, very rare evolutionary benefit, the same benefit that cats and dogs have in fact. In that they are cute, and interesting to the most powerful and influential race in Earth's history. Cat's and Dog's will never go extinct so long as humanity lives on, maybe Panda's will fall under the protection of man.

 

[Sam Warrior]

I think the thing with conservation is that we usually have to conserve species which are having trouble because of human influence. If a species is out competed by some other creature then fair enough but when animals are going extinct because us humans chopped down their home and killed all their prey then preserving at least some of them is a good idea I think.

 

[orangeban]

Humans are in a unique position to help endangered species. No other species has the resources, brains, empathy or opposable thumbs required to help animals in trouble.

Call me a hopeless idealist, but I'd say it's our duty to help animals in need, not just because we caused their troubles, but also because they're dying and... well, to put it simply, I don't want entire species to die out?

Oh, and you bring up smallpox, but I'll tell you why we didn't mind killing smallpox as opposed to pandas.

1) Smallpox is a deadly virus that was killing millions of us
2) We didn't hunt down smallpox, we vaccinated ourselves to protect ourselves, this just resulted in the death of smallpox
3) It's a virus e.g. barely even alive.

 

[chadachada123]

One thing that many people don't consider is the fact that some species are REALLY thriving in human-altered environments. They just happen to be species that humans find "icky," like rats, crows, and cockroaches. Those guys are all spreading wildly.

I suppose, then, I feel that the best option is to keep samples of all species (for observation and for furthering our understanding of biology), but otherwise to control our planet how we see fit. We'd still have to be conservative (for our own damn survival), but we don't need a section of the planet with pandas if we have labs that have pandas (force them to mate for all I care) and if the effort to keep pandas alive in the wild would end up costing a whole lot more energy that could be better spent doing other things.