Pandas - (Should they be supported by Humanity!)

[Santa Clause 2k9]

Pandas - (Should they be supported by Humanity!)

When i was in school yesterday i finished my work in Science a little early, so my teacher let me read a book or paper, listen to my iPod etc.

I popped my iPod in and started reading a Science based paper. (UK) I started to read an article about how Pandas are finding it hard to survive in this day and age from habitats being destroyed, to Humans poaching Panda skins etc.

Some professor, (Currently looking him up on-line) started to talk about how we are supporting pandas, giving to charitys etc. He says "It's a waste of money and resources, as pandas are not able to fight, kill, and survive in this day and age!" He then goes on to say, "How are Pandas supposed to have a future, along side Humanity?"

After reading his article into more detailed i was shocked to read what he said next, "Why don't we just let Human nature of pouching etc take it's course, and panda's nature of sitting around looking cute, and being killed!"

Even though this shocked me (and kind of made me feel a bit sick) he does have a small point. What is actually Panda's purpose? (Even though we can question all of out purpose!)

I just can't stop wondering, why are we here, why is everything here? Why does life itself exist?

So many questions, yet so many unanswered! neutral

[VorpalNeko]

Using naturalism as a guide ethics almost never leads to anything coherent. I don't see why "human nature" includes poaching but excludes empathy for cute-looking things, when arguably the latter is much more ingrained into the human instincts--so why don't we let that part of human nature "run its course"? That whole part seems like rhetorical nonsense.

The rest of the point is right, though, as there is no reason why a disproportionate amount of resources is spent on preserving the panda rather than the multitude of other species that continually die out other than that we simply find pandas cute. Objectively, the best environmentalist strategy would be protect species-rich environments (surprise, surprise) rather than specific species. But this conclusion is a bit muddled by the fact that 'cute' species are good for a raising public awareness and providing motivation for such. So arguably, either the entire environmentalist worldview is wrong (why?) or it is practically necessary that some species, like the panda, take center-stage in that effort.

[The Zodikosis]

I had a thread about this awhile back. Read it if you want further opinions: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/should-we-really-be-saving-the-pandas/t.54787513/

[Mecill]

Pandas fill an ecological niche in their habitat. Unfortunately it seems to conflict with the needs of humans going into that habitat. It is also sad to me that they are being poached along with many other large mammals which are having difficulty coexisting with humans. Anyway, in order to save large animals it is also necessary to preserve larger wild areas (and hence many other species) so actually it is a good thing conservation-wise to protect pandas.

[Mez10000]

Pandas eat a massive amount of bamboo, all year round, so their 'purpose' involves keeping the population of bamboo plants under control.

(Incidentally, what 'purpose' do human beings have in their environment?)

Also, I have an issue with: "human nature of poaching" - killing an animal for any other purpose than terrotorial protection or food isn't natural - it's a socio-economic response. (i.e. We only poach for material gain - money - and the only reason we want money is because capitalist society tells us it's good)