Save the Pandas: Who Decides?
We saved the whales and brought back the bald eagle. But are we pandering to pandas, instead of letting them go extinct?
A British wildlife expert has touched off a passionate debate about man’s responsibility to beast by declaring that the time has come to “pull the plug” on pandas.
Saying that “extinction is very much a part of life on earth,“ naturalist Chris Packham reasoned that the millions of dollars spent annually on an endangered species that is “extraordinarily expensive to keep going,” might be better spent conserving endangered habitats. If we “just bought rainforest,” Packham said, “we might be doing a better job.”
Pandas—the cute, charismatic poster-bears of conservation fundraising—are indigenous to China, where they require enormous amounts of bamboo for sustenance. Now thought to number only 1,600, the notoriously fickle breeders’ native habitat continues to shrink as China’s human population continues to expand.
“I’m not trying to play God,” Packham said. “I’m playing God’s accountant. I’m saying we won’t be able to save it all, so let’s do the best we can.”
His remarks created panda-monium. “It’s a daft thing…to say, and an irresponsible one,” declared a fellow conservationist. “How about we pull the plug on the conservationists!” one person responded online. “Use the money we are paying them to take care of the pandas.” Said another, “I’m not ready to give up on the panda…We put ourselves in a position where we can pretend to be God, and I don’t think we’re up to the task.”
Tell us what you think: Do we have a responsibility to keep all endangered species alive at any cost? If not, who chooses which survive and which do not? Should the panda be allowed to become extinct?
Add Comment Share This
Comments
jade1977
I think that if we put the animal in harms way, by chemicals, or killing their natural habitats, etc., then we are responsible. If they are dying due to natural course of events, we should not play god.
jade1977 | 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Conservationists vs Conservsionism
Conservationists have differing ideologies. Originally, efforts were focused on a reasonable and logical basis to preserve natural resources which are fundamentally required to sustain healthy human life and existence.
The ‘movement’ has morphed into very different pockets and trends, and today it is not uncommon to hear a self proclaimed ‘conservationist’ make statements such as those found here that mans life should be sacrificed for a particular animal (usually the cute ones, but not always) or worm, insect, etc.
Many conservationists will avidly distinguish themselves from ‘environmentalists’ whom they find distasteful – and visa versa. Thus the ‘labeling’ or definition can no longer be taken at face value as one ‘conservationist’ differs from another and they clearly do not share a common ideology, nor do the environmentalists.
Having said that, death is a very real part of life, for humans, creatures and critters, plants, and their derivatives and varieties. Dinosaurs are extinct and there are probably people who would argue for their necessity, too- if any where living today.
As humans, we often engage in enjoying the ‘fantasy’ of ‘eternal life’ – which forms the basis of most religious groups….even if life is defined as ‘after death’. In this fantasy, the person’s spirit or soul – lives (regardless of all evidence to the contrary) on. Some religions are more radical than others in these claims and believes.
Yet, those who care for the ailments of humans ( medical and psychological) along with those who provide care for all mammals, animals, birds – etc – all know full well that we have a life cycle and – well – we – they all ‘die’. Some become extinct.
This is an obvious part of life and yet many (not all) Conservationists and Environmentalist’s fancy themselves quite capable of outsmarting – defying the essence and ‘nature’ of life and living. In some respects, they take on a many qualities of the radical religions of the day….eternal life is and should be the standard we wish to achieve for all species – or at least for the ones they select. A bit of arrogance – underlies this – of course. As we all know, such a thing is not possible.
If it is inevitable for a particular species to ‘die off’ – there is usually another that is rising up to replace it. Man has always been quick and nimble to preserve his own life – to survive and from early on, if it came down to a dual between a man and a Panda- the very nature of survival of both – would result in a fight to the finish. The man has superior brain power – and is able to ‘outsmart’ the animal by way of using the intellectual discoveries and enhanced protection methods developed over he centuries – so but for a chance encounter, likely the ‘man would win’ that battle.
Conservationism creates a ‘moral’ code and foundation that would seem to say a man should sacrifice himself for – a plant – a river- an animal etc. Another similarity to the foundation of most religious believes.
Conservationists and environmentalists have, for the most part lost sight of its value and reasonable basis for sustainable life which was meant to preserve the planet for human life, which by necessity includes preservation and cultivation of plants, animals, and other creatures that by design make life better, safer, and cleaner for humans and those suited to the habitat to life.
In losing sight of this – basic premise- they have turned to their governments to ‘save the world’ (which of course it can’t either) and all the while – at least with the US government – the continue to regulate the care and use of animals and plants by – paying people not to grow, refusing to allow them to keep all but certain ‘approved’ animals on their land and even then only under certain conditions. They have been ‘successful’ in creating ‘animal rights’ which take precedent over individual human rights. So – the dysfunction – which comes from and is due to the lack of a firm solid foundation of premises – filters its way into conversations and discussions about preserving a cute animal over a human being. Sometimes these debates degrade to ‘kill the humans to save the species’ as one sees in some of these comments.
Well – I would ask – if you allow the humans to be killed – who would be around to do the ‘saving’? Only a human can decide to save something that has the capacity to destroy its life. For in nature, Panda’s would not be saved, unless they possessed superior qualities over most other creatures allowing them to survive. As I happen to place human life over any specific type of animal, fish, plant or bug- I agree with the naturalist who makes sense. All life forms are not likely to go on forever…..as natural history will confirm….many become extinct – without any intervention of the part of humans.
The universe contains many undiscovered secrets many many things that we don’t even know we don’t know – which probably makes up the bulk of knowledge undiscovered. If preserving a species is a mission of discovery to better our understanding of life….or it is a personal desire (such as Siegfried and Roy who preserve White Tigers – or a Horse Breeder who raises horses) then I think that is great. If it is aimed at holding human life and lives secondary to a plant or animal- or its underlying premises are to kill mankind, and/or make them extinct……well- I can’t, won’t don’t want any part of it.
Life on earth necessarily includes death, extinction of some animal types, creation of new life and life forms in the plant and animal kingdom every single minute. There is little one can do for very long to stop a natural process as that process will wash over us just like a tornado, hurricane, or other natural phenomenon. To consciously ignore this is useless silliness and only works against knowledge, discovery, and progress.
Of course there are many many people who have no interest in even acknowledging that there are things that they don’t know they don’t know….as they are so certain that they have ‘all the answers’ , already. Another common thread of religions, conservationism, and environmentalism. They close their minds, bury their heads and don’t care to be bothered with discovering any new or real ‘the facts’. For the answer is already before them and they are sure of it, so thwarting, slowing and/or stopping any progress, research or discovery is the end result of all these groups and/or similar belief systems.
Debra Williams | 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
help animals
Animals are being taken away of their natural land all because us humans are being selfish and greedy. these animals need our help! we should be putting the animals before ourselfs because they are the reason we are here today. We should do everything we can to help these poor creatures.
jc | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
saving animals from extinction
Jade said it very succinctly. Humankind has done such damage to our environment that I seriously doubt we can recover. Saving animals that we endanger is only the ethical thing to do.
Frances J. Jessup | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
we should help
this is crazy, of coarse we need to help the pandas.
we are the reason they are becoming extincted.
we hunted them, we built homes on there land,
we took them away from there homes and put them in captivaty
we cut down there bamboo.
if we dont fix this,
there is something seriously f****D up about this planet
carly jade | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
about pandas
pandas should not be exstinct and we are the problem that is making them exstinct what we really need to do is help them think about it would you like to be exstinct?GONE!I dont think so,so if you die once or become exstinct you can’t come back.
hannah syas | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
...
I love how oversimplified people make problems like this:
“Animals are being taken away of their natural land all because us humans are being selfish and greedy. “ Ha. I’m sure it has nothing to do with individuals trying to feed their families and trying to find a place to live. What people think of as human selfishness often stems from really harsh economic and environmental facing real people. It’s often not the case that there’s just a slighter more difficult alternative. For many poor around the world it’s “clear cut the forest for farmland” or “starve”.
What do we owe the Panda? Nothing. It’s a giant, dumb, lazy animal that is ridiculously unadaptable. It’s an evolutionary dead end. The “natural” course of things would have done away with them soon enough. To survive, a species needs to able to cope with changes in it’s environment, and the giant panda shows no capacity for doing so.
John Rhoades | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
you big ape
They have a right to life just as you. They are a creation just as you. Some humans are big dumb lazy animals and we don’t kill them off. Panda’s have more of a fight to survive all thats thrown at them, then man.
hannah syas | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
pandas rights
Why is it all or nothing? Does man need every inch of land on the face of the earth? Is there no room for creatures?
Hannah Syas | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
why would we want pandas to become exstinct?
many animals have become exstinct. What have the pandas ever done to us, that we as humans repay them by,causing the very things that make them become exstinct.
hannah syas | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
1 2 3 > Last » (9 pages)