Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[Shoggoth2588]

Of course not: Where else will I get my panda meat? Every other bear is too full of ichor and, maggots (they being soulless killing machines and all).

In all seriousness, I don't care. Why don't we bring back Tasmanian Tigers instead?

 

[Arkhangelsk]

If we're the cause, we should at least help the poor guys. If we had nothing to do with it, then it's the course of nature.

 

[Sporky111]

As much as I love pandas, I think they should be let go. It's really pointless, people only want to save them because they're adorable and look cute in zoos. I tell you what we should do: take some DNA from the ones we have left, store it away, and then release them all into the wild. If they can't keep themselves from going extinct, it wasn't meant to be. And we'll have a bit of them for future generations.

Also, George Carlin had the right idea (as usual):

 

[Arkhangelsk]

It's one of the cutest animals I've ever seen.

Definitely not allowing them to become extinct.

I forbid it.

And I read that post in the voice of a British gentleman shark.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

So we humans destroy their habitat... but it's their own fault? WTF is wrong with you people.

When I see this, first I like to quote Cracked.

But it concludes that, in this particular case, the best way to respect nature is by donating money to save panda bears from extinction -- despite the fact that nature has expressed in no uncertain terms that it wants pandas dead like yesterday.

Source: #8 in this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_19087_the-9-most-offensive-911-references-in-pop-culture.html#ixzz1JE4gA176]

Then I like to point them to #1 in this article. [http://www.cracked.com/article_16054_6-endangered-species-that-arent-endangered-enough_p2.html]

To quote it, since few will probably read it.

"Not the cuddly, wuddly panda!" you exclaim, possibly chewing on a gender-neutral flax-soy bar. Well guess what? The panda is nature's loser, an animal so far gone that it won't even have sex without the aid of several Chinese zookeepers. When a species' sole responsibility is to "get busy" and it still doesn't bother, then we, as people who have to go to goddamn work every day, lose sympathy.

So yeah, we need to just let the panda go the way of the dodos. We're only keeping it alive because we think it's cute, and because China makes a killing renting pandas out to zoos around the world.(yes China owns all the pandas and any panda you see outside of China is just a rental.)

Wow yes, if Cracked.com, a humor and video site, says it's so, then it MUST be true, right? Cuz after all, Cracked.com, a humor and video site, is being run by scientists, not comedians.

 

[mew4ever23]

Hmm... Question: Why is the Panda Bear so near extinction?
If the answer to that question is Natural Selection, perhaps we should let it occur. Heaven knows the steps we're already taking to help restore Panda populations clearly aren't working very well.

If, however, we (humans) are the problem, then we should take further steps to save the species. Might as well try and fix what we broke, right?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Whoever answers yes to this has no soul.

Save the pandas!

 

[bz316]

Look, if this was just a case of humans fucking everything up, then I'd say it was something we should try to prevent. On the other hand, they seem reluctant to actually bone each other, and I'm pretty sure a species becoming reluctant to bone is a species that is just asking for the end to come...

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

They're a species that's too stupid and fat to have sex, even they don't want to continue existing.
I say yes, let's focus on another animal to save, maybe this cute little guy.

Spoiler

D'AAAAAWWWW He wants a hug.

Endangered or not...

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

more OT: I think pandas are cool, but I also believe that they are doomed.

 

[JMeganSnow]

If people want to spend their money on "saving" pandas, then they can save their money on "saving" pandas. It's their money.

Anyone who wants to spend MY money for same better think again.

 

[KefkaCultist]

Nooooooo! I'd be a sad panda

 

[Lawllerskater]

Yes, they won't breed on their own. They're too lazy to breed. THEY CAN'T BREED BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO LAZY AND DUNT WANNA

 

[oldskoolandi]

We should let nature take its course. If they can't adapt, and don't provide any use then the money we spend on them could probably be better employed elsewhere - like say, to fund medical research. Something with an actual purpose, instead of just 'oh but we have to save them, they're cute'.

 

[Eisenfaust]

nah... the money we spend saving them supports the economy in one way or another

plus, if we save these guys, we can learn how to better save everything else later

 

[qeinar]

We try to make them mate, but the fuckers are to picky, i say let 'em die.

 

[Dasrufken]

THEY ARE TOO CUTE TO BECOME EXTINCT!!!!

 

[smurf_you]

Honestly even the ones left in the wild don't wanna have sex, most of the time we have to do artificial insemination, OR I remember hearing something about them trying panda porn, which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard as a side note

 

[Baneat]

Cutting Costs: "Should we axe this species to save money?"

It's like someone going into a bar and saying: "Raise your hand if you are a convicted rapist."

This is so rhetorical I don't know what else to say...

But, obviously, IMO, no, we should not kill it, that would kind of defeat the purpose of protecting endangered species in the first place.

Besides from preserving the ecosystem (or preventing bad consequence)

What exactly is the purpose of protecting endangered species?

A legitimate question, how rare

I looked around for something that might answer that well and found this:

http://www.endangeredspecie.com/Why_Save_.htm

Sorry but none of that source is applicable to pandas, apart from aesthetic, but I don't consider "they look nice" to even come close to a sufficient reason.

So I've taken the kantian response, let's go utilitarian(JS Mill version). Let's spend all the money that would have saved pandas on saving people. Bam,

No sufficient reason has been given so far for this specific circumstance.

I'm considering animals' necessity to live on a species by species basis.

I'm not really surprised that wasn't good for you...

Well, say for example a vast highly-evolved race of space-traveling beings took notice of Earth and realized humans were leading themselves to destruction but because humans had nothing to contribute to their society, they decide not to do anything and let us bring our own eventual downfall.

If that doesn't affect your argument in any way, then I've got nothing else to say.

Sorry I shouldn't have skipped a step. Kantians believe in the sovereignty of reason, it's the only important thing about people. If a pig started to have choices and could hold an argument, it would be worth more than a human who cannot. Pandas have no ability to reason ergo, through the inverse of valuing reason, you can only value what they do as a tool.

Humans do have reason, so yes I have a problem with it, and your example changes my argument in no way whatsoever.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

If they do die out at least we can say we tried, right?

 

[Ohhi]

As cool as pandas are, I don't think they are worth saving now if penguins ever were endangered than yeah we should make sure they don't die.