Should we pack the idea of "Saving the Pandas" ?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8260000/newsid_8268500/8268582.stm

Panda protection 'too expensive'

People all over the world campaign to protect the giant panda from extinction but one wildlife expert says he thinks they should be left to die out.

Autumnwatch presenter Chris Packham says it doesn't make sense spending millions breeding pandas in captivity when they can't survive in the wild.

He says pandas' natural habitats are dying out, making it hard for the furry beasts to survive on their own.

So he thinks the money would be better off spent on protecting other animals.


Unsurprisingly, not everyone is happy with the TV presenter's views.

Dr Mark Wright, who's an advisor for the World Wildlife Fund, said: "It's a daft thing to say and an irresponsible one.

"Pandas face extinction because of poaching and humans moving into their habitat. If left alone, then they would function perfectly well."

Mr Packham admits his views are controversial, but says it's time we found the courage "to give up on pandas", which he says are not a strong species.

"Unfortunately it's big and cute and it's a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund - and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation.

"I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity."

Poll Results

OptionVotes
Nooh, save 'em 11
Yeah, sod 'em 6


Mark G, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:40 (sixteen years ago)

http://thefastertimes.com/science/files/2009/08/panda01.jpg

Too cute to just give up on, imo.

Samuel (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

who will teach us about sexual harrassment now?

unban dictionary (blueski), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

Dear Chris Packham,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Erica NBB

ps -

http://www.codeforsomething.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2007-3-23233923_7_.jpg

and also

http://ijjfellows.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/panda-bear-d.jpg

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 16:57 (sixteen years ago)

all time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDY2m-oUdqE

unban dictionary (blueski), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

packham presumably doesn't actually believe this and is successfully trolling for media coverage about their habitat being lost.

caek, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

I've heard him say this exact same thing before, years ago.

Alba, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:05 (sixteen years ago)

I was just reading about how camels and horses evolved in North America and then traveled to Asia across successive versions of land bridge and then went extinct in their native habitats and had to be reintroduced by people thousands of years later, and it makes me think: it's not that we shouldn't try to be just and kind to animals, ie not club their babies into extinction just to remove a certain gland or tusk or pelt, but the survival of every species is not necessarily our problem.

that stupid-ass cannibal pen-pal of yours (Laurel), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

I mean varieties of all animals, reptiles, and insects have come and gone through non-human history. No one worried about them then.

that stupid-ass cannibal pen-pal of yours (Laurel), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

I've heard him say this exact same thing before, years ago.

Pissed, in the pub?

"PANDASH?? FACKING BARSHTODSH. (hic) YOU KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO?? FACKING CASHTRATE THE FACKING LOT OF EM THE LAZY SHMUG CANTS"

Halt! Fergiezeit (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

I mean I'm sure there is at least some validity to that sort of thinking and understand what Laurel is saying but then I look at them and their pig panda eyes and furball babies and any logic/reason goes straight out the window and I want to singlehandly save them all myself.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:10 (sixteen years ago)

yeah but PANDAS. sod the scaly, slimey mf-ers but we do have a duty to save the cute, doe-eyed ones.

give me sluts (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

x-post err . . . singlehandedly

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

How about Erica offers to keep them all in her apartment? Kinda like a halfway house.

give me sluts (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

i mean since we destroyed their homes in the name of human expansion and have been fucking up the natural order left and right forever i don't have a problem with artificially trying to save them.

call all destroyer, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

x-post I have a huge almost life sized stuffed bear named Otto. They would be good company for him.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

(me napping on Otto btw Happy Birthday, ENBB!!)

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:19 (sixteen years ago)

No, no, clearly civilization-effected habitat loss is a giant problem that I'm not including in this category. Specifically at the time I was thinking about polar bears and their starvation now that the glaciers are receding and the pack ice forms later/melts sooner. Which has arguably been worsened due to global warming, but has happened many times due to natural climate changes and the ebb and flow of the various ice ages, one of which we are apparently still at the tail end of.

So it would be getting warmer anyway, maybe just more slowly w/o human pollution.

that stupid-ass cannibal pen-pal of yours (Laurel), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:20 (sixteen years ago)

>:(

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:25 (sixteen years ago)

;_;

To rerail (hopefully), I do think that large animals (slow herbivores more than nippy carnivores) are ultimately pretty much doomed. I was at a museum the other week where they had a model walrus and this guy was HUGE. I feel bad an' all but Laurel's probably right. In the long run all that's gonna be left are the cockroaches. Cheered you up at all?

give me sluts (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

As long as there are people who love teh cuet, there will be pandas.

The Real Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 23 September 2009 15:23 (sixteen years ago)

one month passes...

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

System, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:01 (sixteen years ago)

planet of weeds -

http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/weeds.html

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:31 (sixteen years ago)

You know, people just can't be sold by financial arguments when it comes to anything slightly emotionally or romantically charged. I don't know whether I agree w/this dude or not but going "it's really expensive!" is not gonna sell people, sorry dude. (I learned this after years of holding the conviction that manned space travel is unnecessary bcz we can learn all the space stuff just as well by sending out machines...no one likes this argument bcz space travel is exciting and romantic and evocative!)

we are normal and we want our freedom (Abbott), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:38 (sixteen years ago)

(I have kind of changed around and now think manned space travel is pretty rad.)

we are normal and we want our freedom (Abbott), Wednesday, 28 October 2009 00:38 (sixteen years ago)

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

System, Thursday, 29 October 2009 00:01 (sixteen years ago)

Pandas win.

Mark G, Thursday, 29 October 2009 10:04 (sixteen years ago)

Erica's panda pics upthread have me reduced to a puddle of goo.

i ? sauces (â•“abies), Thursday, 29 October 2009 11:40 (sixteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.