Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[KeyMaster45]

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.)

 

[Russian_Assassin]

snip

You do know that a panda is a vicious animal that can disembowel you?

It's a bear! Even a small one may chop your arm off while playing with you! With this approach you have towards cute animals, I hope you NEVER EVER try to pet a Dingo.

[sub]It's basically a wolf, only from Australia, therefore a billion times more dangerous![/sub]​

 

[Slipped Mind]

I voted no. I love pandas. If you're willing to allow them to become extinct, you are clearly pure evil.

Just look at them ._.

 

[Sanglyon]

Pandas are a slap to Darwin's face (guess anything can exist if there isn't something to eat it or destroy their home)

Wait, what? "Anything can exist if there isn't something to eat it or destroy their home" is a slap to Darwin's face, why?

How does the existence of an animal without predators invalidate that those with predators only survive if they are fit to do so?

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

They have no interest in continuing their own species. Evolution says they should become extinct.

Let evolution speak for itself.

I don't think they should be let to go extinct, but Human's should be a bit smarted in the way they try to get them to procreate. In vitro fertilisation is a method that comes to mind, we impregnate enough Pandas through in vitro fertilisation, then in a few generations we start to slowly release them back into the wild. Of course when releasing them we would use controlled forests were civilian access is very limited, and we will slowly allow Pandas to go back into society.

Although, if they're not procreating in a natural habitat through no fault of any human, that would suggest they're a bit inferior and there fore becoming a large burden on humans. If it is abundantly clear that Pandas are behind on the evolutionary cycle or chain, then it is best (in my opinion) to allow nature to take its coarse.

PS I got the weird thought that, while we are debating if Pandas should live, imagine that there are some Alien overlords debating over our existence. Calling us futile, inferior, insignificant.

 

[Seneschal]

We are the dominant species, and I think we can show some responsibility.

Shit, we spend millions of dollars to find old lizard bones but we can't be bothered to save species that exist today?

The role of the dominant species does not come with bigger responsibilities. It's a measure of efficiency, not a rank or a position. By destroying the pandas' habitat, we've enabled other species to fill the niche (including ourselves). THAT is natural selection - a fragile system that cannot self-sustain being spontaneously replaced by a more robust and enduring one. And I totally agree with you that we should be better stewards, but in the end, we're not worried about natural order - we just want green pastures in our front yard and videos of happy pandas in the wild on our TV because it makes us feel all responsible and important. Doesn't make it any more natural than just ending the species.

Besides, how is extinction murder? No individual member of the species is suffering because of it, we're not infringing on their rights. And surely there's no such thing as a "right not to go extinct". That's about as unnatural as it gets.

Also, dinosaurs are more closely related to avians than reptiles. Like, really big birds.

 

[Canid117]

Should we let this go extinct

How could anyone

By remembering that it is a fucking Bear that would eat you if it wasn't so fat, slow and stupid.

 

[Baneat]

Are they rational beings

No. Move along to next question

Are they useful?

Yes?Save them

No? Do not

I don't know if they need to survive.. my guess is no.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Try watching some more Discovery Channel or reading a couple of National Geographic books, m'kay? There are in fact quite a few species that have some issues with their genitalia and the uses thereof because of human pollution. However, the panda one is one of the most pressing. Besides, it's harder to make people care about crocodiles than cute looking pandas.

Ok, so let's disrespect other people's opinions and call them trolls! My post wasn't some objective statement. It's my view on the subject. The OP asked me, I answered. Do we really need to say IN MY OPINION every time we speak (I think Moviebob covered this notion)?

And even if humans were the cause, how do you suggest we deal with this scenario? A couple of nature loving scientists won't do shit. The people in power couldn't give less of a fuck about some animals dying, as long as it doesn't affect their profit. And guess who runs the show on this god damn planet?

If people want to save earth, we must take the power back in our hands and then we can decide the fate of the earth. Simply yelling at the politicians to help save the earth isn't going to get you anywhere.

Alright, alright, geez... easy with the 'cruise control' will ya? (By the way, how can you deliberately use a trollface as an avatar and act all offended when I make a lil' joke about it?)

As for your other two paragraphs: no shit Sherlock. Money makes the world go round and you ain't getting nowhere if you're not willing to go over some dead bodies. Personally? I wouldn't know what you could do to 'save the earth'. Cleaning op oil spills at the beach? Become an environmentalist terrorist? You tell me. I just made an observant statement that human actions messed up a lot more things than many people would like to believe, that's it.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Owlslayer]

snip

[sub]It's basically a wolf, only from Australia, therefore a billion times more dangerous![/sub]​

Well, that dingo sure looks cute. And do i really NEED an arm? I've got two of them, you know...
But yeah, i know they're dangerous, no wild animal is all cuddly etc. But still. They LOOK damn cute. If i had god-like powers, I'd save all cute animals if they were endangered. But i don't. Which is quite bad.

Though i would like to know if pandas would survive if humans never existed. I mean, if they wouldn't even then, then i suppose it's fair play...
And how much money are we talking about being spent on pandas? I'm sure there are loads of other such programs for saving other animals. Just wondering if the panda programs are a lot more expensive.

 

[Rex Fallout]

I'd say no we shouldn't but the chinese government doesnt do much in terms of 'helping the enviorment.' Plus they wouldnt let me in their country cuz I'd immediatly run into the streets screaming, "DEMOCRACY! DEMOCRACY!" until some chinese guy who knew english came over and said, "Uh dude no one understands you." And then I'd be like, "Oh sorry, whats, the chinese word for democracy?" Then he'd tell me and I'd run into the street yelling that and be shot by the PLA, and the man who talked to me would have to be shot to, (cuz he's a danger to country, telling foreigners what the word for democracy is in chinese) and then there would be this whole international thing where the US did nothing because in the end the government really doesnt give a flying flip about the people. Obama would be like, "Sorry Mr. Jintao, wont let it happen again."

I seem to have strayed from the topic. I cant really vote however, where is the, 'the chinese government is the one that will probably kill it anyways' button? Eh I'll just push no cuz its not as depressing.

 

[Kenny Kondom]

An animal that wont get their leg over for the sake of their own continued existance is pretty much the biggest (and at the same time, lamest) winner of the Darwin awards for certain. Who in their right mind says no to getting laid???

 

[Grickit]

No we shouldn't let them die out. But only because they're neat. If it was some silly think like the Tasmanian watcha-ma-call it, then yeah: let nature take its course.

Animals that are okay to waste billions on keeping around if they ever get to that point:
Panda
Okapi
Pangolin
Red Panda
Spider Monkey
Squids of any kind

 

[Ledan]

We've messed enough with the ecosystem. Things becoming extinct is a part of nature, a harsh one, but an integral part of it. We shouldn't go out of our way to save a species that can no longer survive in a natural environment that no longer exists.
And although we destroy many animal habitats, we also create new ones when we adapt the environment. Crows are a good example, as well as pigeons.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

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

 

[Rainforce]

It's always good to help others, but considering their requirements for their enviroment they're pretty much lost. Too specialized and too generally ineffective.
So I think it's time to stop the metaphorical heart-lung machine.

 

[zombie711]

But there so cute, and who would repersent WWF?

 

[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.