Poll: Should We let pandas become extinct?

[Brockyman]

Ecosystem needs all animals, big small, and microscopic. Letting any species go extinct is inexcusable especially if we're the reason their threatened in the first place.

That's not entirely true.... if you believe in Evolution (either that's how life came to be or that even in a God created universe, things change every day) then you can't believe this statement. I do think it's ironic that while most "environmentalist/liberals" that believe in evolution mock "religious/conservative" people for believing in Creationism always seem to forget that evolution DEMANDS species die out, even if it's direct human intervention.

Animal species die out. Do you think our ecosystem would be better with Dinosaurs running around? Humans and a lot of other mammal species would never have developed with the T-Rex and Velociraptors running around.

Humans aren't responsible for ALL animal extinction either... many die just because their time has come, or their habitat is gone. While we should be good stewards of the planet, we can't make keeping one limited population of a subspecies of field mice alive.

Also, (again this includes Evolution and Creationist theories), every animal species that exists today DIDN'T exist in the beginning of time. Most have changed during the evolutionary process OR have gained genetic advantages/disadvantages during thousands of years of development, naturally and thru breeding.

Finally, nature seems to have a way in dealing with loss. Take the Deep Horizon Oil Spill. None of the doomsday predictions of catastrophic sealife death and oil soaked beaches for thousands of miles came true. There was some damage, and human intervention played a part, but the ecosystem itself was able to limit and recover for most of the damage on it's own.

 

[Dorian6]

I am a strong believer in evolution and natural selection, so in this particular case, I think we just need to let nature take its course.

Of the pandas we have in captivity, we only ask one thing; that they mate and have panda babies. If a species can't even be bothered to have sex, why are we working so hard to preserve it?

 

[Nietz]

I say let them die out. Sure, the argument is there that we are to blame for their... misfortune. In all honestly though, let's just let them go with some dignity. Keeping them alive in the state their in now is kinda cruel in itself.

Oh and yeah, why is this OUR choice? Shouldn't the pandas be the ones to choose to live or die out. Now-a-days it seems they have already made their choice, you know, with all the f*cking their not doing.

 

[LobsterFeng]

If they're too stupid to have sex then there's nothing really we can do, but I don't think we should purposely let them die off though.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

No, make an effort damnit!

I don't care if you call it the circle of life, which it's not since we people seem to interfere in their existence. We broke it so we should fucking fix it.

 

[RatRace123]

That is adorable. What kind of spider is it and is it really endangered?

It is a Goliath Bird Eating Spider (guess why it's called that) and it is indeed endangered.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Survival of the fittest. Pandas are no exception.

There was a Cyanide & Happiness comic on the subject, and I've spent the last few minutes looking for it with no success.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

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

Yes, it is.

This may be difficult for you to accept, but humanity as a naturally occurring species is one that adapts the environment, rather than adapting TO the environment, to suit its needs. So, as it is the purview of other species to adapt themselves, who is actually failing at their job if a species of animal can't keep up? To put this another way, if a species of wolf migrates into a new area and wipes out all the deer, then whose fault is it the deer are gone? Or more importantly, who cares?

You're trying to apply a sense of right and wrong to a phenomenon that bucks notions of morality. In order for one form of life to live/thrive, another one is going to die out. That's nature for you. Sorry if it's not the cutesy song and dance utopia that Disney brought you to believe.

No it isn't.

This may be difficult for you to accept, but when we cut down rainforests we are destroying animal's habitat. You do know what this also means, right? Rainforests are a big part of South American, and yes Global ecology. Thousands of people have died in floods, which could have been prevented by leaving or replanting the rainforests. Floods at one place means droughts at another place. And globally, cutting down trees that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and of course a dead tree isn't going to recycle that into oxygen anymore.

So you're suggesting we should happily poison all lakes with industrial waste, cut down all forests, put as much garbage into the seas as we can,... in short, take away all animal's natural habitat?

It's heart warming a fascist like yourself think what I'm trying to do. I'm using common sense. We can adapt the environment to our needs, but with that also comes responsibility. Yes we could screw the earth in a short time. Nice achievement bro, you standing on a desolated rock formerly called Earth turned into Uninhabitable Hellhole, going, "Hey look at us, we're the last animals on earth, we're so cool!".

"In form of life to thrive, another one is going to die out..." ROFL dude, are we in an arena or something? We humans are on top of the foodchain. Your nice movie-line there is only valid with 2 species in direct conflict with each other, say lions and tigers fighting over prey in the same area.
Guess what, your nice line there does not apply at all to humans. No other species need to die out for us to thrive.


Some people are actually getting an education in these things, instead of watching documentaries on youtube that 'accidentally' prove what you want them to.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

Humans destroyed their habitat - and they have a pretty damn specific niche they fill - so I don't see how we're not responsib.

On top of that, they're so damn cute

It's easier to put fingers in your ears, and go "Nanana not listening" than take up responsibility.
Also easy to make up cool stories about how we should all do our part in destroying the environment. Where the hell they get all these rednecks from on the Escapist?

 

[BytByte]

I'd say nay because if panda's go, then red pandas may be next. And I'll never allow those balls of adorable be wiped out.

 

[Jim-a-Lim]

Duty of care to animals. I think that it's an essential human quality.

lol and how much meat did you eat today. dont feel ashamed we are carnivores/omnivores, its what we are suppose to do, unlike the panda that is vegetarian carnivore that has no sex drive or any drive at all... kinda like the hippie of the animal kingdom, and the 60's are long over.

a less polite person would have made perhaps made offensive parallels between vegetarian humans and pandas.....but not me, im to civil

I am not a vegetarian , but I do try to live treating animals fairly and kindly where ever I can, and I think it's an important characteristic.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

There has been a lot of money spent on keeping the Giant Panda on the Earth. Now it's likely that without humans on the planet, that they wouldn't be dying out, though they have been called an evolutionary cul-de-sac by several wildlife experts. So what i'm asking is could that money have been better spent on saving animals that can be helped?

Having taken my family all the way interstate to the Adelaide Zoo just to see the Giant Pandas I'm going to say no.
Maybe if we stopped fucking up their habitat they might be a bit more inclined to mate. If I was thrown out of my house and then taken and shoved in a store window the last thing I'd feel like is sex.... or is it? They'd also have a better chance if people didn't lop off their testicles, grind them into a powder and inhale them so they could bar up.

Incidentally, I saw a very similar road-sign to the one that's your avatar. Either the zombie apocalypse is spreading or people are running out of ideas for sign-based practical jokes.

 

[Bobbity]

No. Even though they're a total fuck-up of evolution, I don't think that we should let them die out if we have the power to stop it.

On the other hand, it'll likely become even harder to keep them alive, the more dependant on us that they become.

/edit
Besides, we're causing their extinction, through the fragmentation of their habitats. Some might say that we owe it to them. Just keep in mind that the fuckers would eat us if they had the chance

How about spending the money used on keeping them alive on helping our own race. We've got enough problems as it is. When we solve them, sure, spend as much as you want on keeping endangered species alive but as it stands, it's just plain immoral.

If you accept that though, then where do we stop? Do we cut down the Amazon rainforest, killing off thousands of different species because our needs take priority? Do we eradicate the dodo so as to provide food for our Portugese settlers?

If it was us or them, I'd say us in a heartbeat. The thing is that we can work for ourselves and other species. To say that the money we spend helping them could be better spent on ourselves, when far, far more money is already spent on fighting to eradicate povert and disease, is like saying that we shouldn't spend on entertainment and instea put our money into charities, or that we should stop the space program and put money into, I don't know, education. Just because we can, it doesn't mean that we should.

/edit
Sorry, been typing this on my phone, so there are probably more than a few typos.

 

[mrdude2010]

Ecosystem needs all animals, big small, and microscopic. Letting any species go extinct is inexcusable especially if we're the reason their threatened in the first place.

How impressively naive. Pandas are those big fluffy stick eating bear things that don't have sex no matter how much we try to make them, nature has made it clear in no uncertain terms that these guys are dying out.

they were doing fine without us. like the dodo. and a lot of africa's jungle cats. and the 50 or so species of birds we killed on various islands. and the buffalo. just to name a few

 

[Danpascooch]

Ecosystem needs all animals, big small, and microscopic. Letting any species go extinct is inexcusable especially if we're the reason their threatened in the first place.

How impressively naive. Pandas are those big fluffy stick eating bear things that don't have sex no matter how much we try to make them, nature has made it clear in no uncertain terms that these guys are dying out.

Nature made it clear? No, back during the normal order of nature these guys were doing JUST FINE, we fucked it up, we need to fix it, it's that simple, humanity needs to clean up its messes

 

[Danpascooch]

Yes, I think we should let them die out.
Just because we are the dominant species on this planet, everything has a life cycle, and nature needs to run its course.

If they are dying out, then surely nature wants them to die out? Survival of the fittest and all that jazz.
Nature will then form a balance from an inbalance, it's just the way life is sometimes.

Getting into the religious side of it; God gave us stewardship over all the animals, yet since Biblical times [i.e. mostly not real times] there have been many species that have died out; Dinosaurs, Dodo birds, Wooly Mammoths, Dragons*, Kabutops* etc etc and we sure as hell didn't save those creatures and we seem to be fine as a planet so do you think adding another one to that list is really going to harm us that much?

*Species may or may not have existed /sarcasm.

If they are dying out nature wants them to die out? Back before humans came into the scene they were fine, so it isn't nature that's killing them, if we decided today to hunt bald eagles to extinction with rifles, and then did it, would you say it was because nature wants them to die out?

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Should we let this go extinct

How could anyone

I could.

People can call me an asshole and such, but in all actuality, I personally feel that we should just let em die off. For that matter, unless its something that we absolutely, psoitively, (for lack of better words) fucking need to survive, I don't really support endangered species as we keep them alive for selfish reasons.

All these people preserving the wildlife do so so that future generations can see them/so they can see them. As soon as they got that reason, they become selfish in keeping said species alive. *shrug*

 

[WolfEdge]

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

Yes, it is.

This may be difficult for you to accept, but humanity as a naturally occurring species is one that adapts the environment, rather than adapting TO the environment, to suit its needs. So, as it is the purview of other species to adapt themselves, who is actually failing at their job if a species of animal can't keep up? To put this another way, if a species of wolf migrates into a new area and wipes out all the deer, then whose fault is it the deer are gone? Or more importantly, who cares?

You're trying to apply a sense of right and wrong to a phenomenon that bucks notions of morality. In order for one form of life to live/thrive, another one is going to die out. That's nature for you. Sorry if it's not the cutesy song and dance utopia that Disney brought you to believe.

No it isn't.

This may be difficult for you to accept, but when we cut down rainforests we are destroying animal's habitat. You do know what this also means, right? Rainforests are a big part of South American, and yes Global ecology. Thousands of people have died in floods, which could have been prevented by leaving or replanting the rainforests. Floods at one place means droughts at another place. And globally, cutting down trees that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and of course a dead tree isn't going to recycle that into oxygen anymore.

So you're suggesting we should happily poison all lakes with industrial waste, cut down all forests, put as much garbage into the seas as we can,... in short, take away all animal's natural habitat?

It's heart warming a fascist like yourself think what I'm trying to do. I'm using common sense. We can adapt the environment to our needs, but with that also comes responsibility. Yes we could screw the earth in a short time. Nice achievement bro, you standing on a desolated rock formerly called Earth turned into Uninhabitable Hellhole, going, "Hey look at us, we're the last animals on earth, we're so cool!".

"In form of life to thrive, another one is going to die out..." ROFL dude, are we in an arena or something? We humans are on top of the foodchain. Your nice movie-line there is only valid with 2 species in direct conflict with each other, say lions and tigers fighting over prey in the same area.
Guess what, your nice line there does not apply at all to humans. No other species need to die out for us to thrive.


Some people are actually getting an education in these things, instead of watching documentaries on youtube that 'accidentally' prove what you want them to.

"Fascist"...?

Let's get a few things ironed out, here. First of all, that word does not mean what you think it means. Second, I'm not sure how you managed to pull "let's destroy the world and all who inhabit it" from "there is no such thing as good and evil in the natural world". That you did tells me that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.

In other words, you'd make a damn fine politician.

Thirdly, the entirety of your last paragraph is wholly incorrect. We ARE in an arena, it's called "Earth". And yes, you don't get to live unless something else doesn't. That steak you're eating? It came from a living being, as did those mashed potatoes sitting next to it. That food source for those lions and tigers you mentioned? Living things. The natural world is nothing but a race for dominance, whether you want it to be or not. And to drive that point home, do you realize how close you are to death at this very moment? Do you not understand how many DIFFERENT strands of viruses and bacteria your body is combating right now? Do you know why you get to continue living?

It's not because of some poorly conceived right to life, it's because your body's defenses are stronger than the diseases attacking it. It's because you have an immune system complex enough to withstand multi-tiered onslaughts from multiple microscopic predators. And, if you didn't, if you DID succumb to an illness and die, do you think those viruses would care? Do you think the natural world would give a shit that poor little you couldn't handle what it threw at you? If the situation between the panda and the human were reversed, would a panda give a flying fuck that I was one of the last of my species?

It's a very common tactic for someone like you to mindlessly gab about responsibilities and other forms of simpering bullshit that ultimately hold no logical bearing on the topic at hand. Rules of that caliber don't exist in nature. That you think they do is more a testament to your own zealotry and poor grasp of the situation rather than reality. If performing an action as a race holds universal benefit to us (assuring a supply of oxygen) then it behooves us to facilitate that action (notice I say nothing about responsibility). However, if a separate species of animal can't keep up with the rest of the world, then, well, tough shit. If YOU want to save the pandas, that's you're purview, but don't come bitching to me with this ridiculous prophetic notion of some inherent divine human responsibility.

 

[A Free Man]

No weyyyy they are way too cool to let die.

 

[theheroofaction]

I don't care that they would already be extinct naturally, SAVE THE PANDAS
I mean, look at this

Spoiler