<p>Let</a> Pandas Die out, Says Naturalist - ABC News</p>
<p>Anyone agree? Or is this guy just an idiot?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though it’s a horrible suggestion, there are some grains of truth to his statement. </p>
<p>As a species, Pandas should have died out years ago. Pandas represent one of the greatest human preservation efforts, and they can barely sustain their own population. On the other hand, thousands of species unknowingly die out every year due to human actions and environment changes. Pandas are protected because they are cute/cuddly, while other species are neglected. </p>
<p>Though he made a tasteless comment, I think he was trying to emphasize the great bias in preservation efforts.</p>
<p>Cute and cuddly is important. I love pandas.</p>
<p>I don’t care if this guy has a legitimate point, its not very wise to diss the national symbol of China. It’s not so much tasteless as not very well thought out. The Chinese hold the Panda in much higher regard than, say, an American to the eagle.</p>
<p>If Pandas’ biological evolution is just so pathetic that nothing we can do will help them survive naturally, then sure, let nature have her way. But the reason why Pandas are so seriously endangered isn’t because of their evolutionary failings, but because of serious environmental degradation and human expansion into their habitat. Animals have evolved for hundreds of millions of years in order to survive nature, not mankind.</p>
<p>P.S. theReach
In case you haven’t noticed, it was the Chinese who reduced the Panda population to its present stage. It wasn’t the American, Indians, or Europeans who secretly sneaked into China and built condos on the Panda’s habitat. And last time I check, the Panda isn’t on the Chinese national seal or the Chinese renminbi.</p>
<p>Preservation isn’t the crux of the argument here, but wasted preservation. If the money being used to continue a dying species is successfully used in numerous other efforts, then it will be all the better. According to him, saving one doomed specie and letting others quietly die out isn’t the best approach.</p>
<p>^I directly stated that? Seriously? Good God reach, you’re living up your sn. It’s a serious reach to draw “every country should base their national seal and legal tender on the United States’ one.” from “the Panda isn’t on the Chinese national seal or the Chinese renminbi.”</p>
<p>No, I apologize. I meant to say that you directly stated that for a country to hold its national animal in higher regard than the Americans do, you have to have it on your seal and legal tender. Which is a ridiculous notion.</p>
<p>^While I don’t doubt the Chinese are serious about protecting their national treasure, it was still them who placed the Pandas on the endangered list. America is equally blameworthy on this regard. The Bald Eagles were on the endangered species list for a long time because poisons from factories were infecting their food supply and destroying their eggs. Countries can hold any animal to be their national symbol, but that means little when their action wipes those animals out. Any protectionist measure is only after the fact that incredible harms have been done to the animal.</p>
<p>They would have survived just splendidly on their own if it weren’t for us destroying their habitat. So we screwed them up, therefore we should fix the situation. The guy is an idiot.</p>
<p>They’re cute.</p>
<p>i always lol at the idea that every species on the verge of extinction is going extinct because of people, and needs to be saved. it’s as if no species has ever gone extinct during the 99.9% of earth’s history that didn’t include people.</p>
<p>This guy forgets that if we didn’t try to save the cute and cuddly species at all, NOBODY would donate to conservation efforts. Is there bias in our conservation spending? Duh. Is it necessary? Yes. The arthropods and molluscs are extremely, extremely important, but honestly, nobody cares about them beyond the scientific community. The panda is the symbol for the movement to preserve them all.</p>
<p>^WHAT?!? MOLLUSKS ARE CUTEE.</p>
<p>Pandas on the other hand are fatasses.</p>
<p>WELL LOOK who’s talking MEADOW.</p>
<p>(mollusk’s <em>are</em> cute though)</p>
<p>I think Woolly Mammoths should have been preserved.</p>
<p>Damn those cavemen.</p>
<p>thousands of species die every day
it’s normal.
i personally don’t believe the extinction of half these animals are due to our environmental failure to mother nature. It was already normal for thousands of species to die, it just so happens that after a few million years Earth decided it’s going to have anoter one of its “lets make a lot of species die” periods.</p>
<p>in the words of george carlin
leave the earth alone! let the animals go gracefully!</p>
<p>Except we can’t leave the earth alone. That’s why preservation is necessary, to make up for whatever human related extinctions occur. </p>
<p>From a fiscal and logical point of view, this guy’s got it right. It would be more prudent to abandon a lost cause when we see one, and channel that money into conservation efforts that will actually work.</p>
<p>If they have the ability to that’s in “reason” (…subjective, I know) then by all means, save the let the penguins dance, and the pandas rap and the cows do whatever they do in Disney movies. </p>
<p>However, if the amount of resources and funds and manpower this requires is “unreasonable” then…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ahem, WHAT? </p>
<p>Indeed. I’m surprised there isn’t a SAVE THE MOLLUSKS group…I googled it no luck. I think I’m going create a “Cause” on on FB. It would be pretty legit imo.</p>