Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: BenVitale on 23/09/2009 22:15:17
-
Hi,
I've just read an article that sounds to me outrageous
Here it is
Let pandas die out, says noted naturalist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32974370/ns/world_news-world_environment/?GT1=43001)
The Naturalist says that the Panda has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac
It is a dangerous thought ... if we accept it we could use the same argument for any other species, or even for groups of people.
Your thoughts, please
-
It is a certainty over geologic time that every species becomes obsolete. And yes, some people, as did the Nazis, will use bad science to justify atrocities.
Yet this does not either damn nor glorify the opinion of this person, who wishes to use the money more effectively. In all budgets, whether in business, personal, or eleemosynary ones such as this, priorities must be established. Making an argument for or against funding for a particular species preservation is done all of the time. A local example I am familiar with is the preservation of the Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat as housing and business development expand into their nesting area. It affects me as I live in the habitat area where these birds live.
This is just one man's opinion. It cannot be judged as good or bad scientifically. The issue is an emotional issue, not a scientific issue.
-
This is not the first time I have heard this suggested. In fact I have even heard it suggested, that but for man's intervention, the Giant Panda would be nearer extinction today than it is.
The females ovulate just once a year and the males seem to be uninterested in females in heat. So there plight it is not purely a problem caused by man, although, there can be little doubt that man's intrusion into the Panda's habitat has not helped the situation.
Packham does have a point in the fact that conservation funds are finite.
-
I think that the argument put forward by that article is rational and I wouldn't argue against it. However, I would like to see Giant Pandas saved because they represent a bit of frivolity in a world that is essentially utilitarian. Basically, I'd like to see them saved, not because they scientifically valuable and worth saving for that reason, but because they're funny and absurd.
-
I think that the argument put forward by that article is rational and I wouldn't argue against it. However, I would like to see Giant Pandas saved because they represent a bit of frivolity in a world that is essentially utilitarian. Basically, I'd like to see them saved, not because they scientifically valuable and worth saving for that reason, but because they're funny and absurd.
Here, here! Sometimes we need a symbol!
-
I think its sad that someone is willing to let a species die out. Especially such an unique species of animal. I definitely want to see giant pandas saved. If we stop helping one kind of animal soon we are going to start pulling the plug on other species. And at the rate that the humans expand we're not going to have anymore wild life left on this planet. I may be exaggerating and looking far far into the future but I think if they are willing to let one species of animal die off they are willing to let other species of animals die off in the future.
-
It also makes me angry that someone wants to give up on something like that. GRRRRR Pandas have been symbolic in China for a loooong time. So Chinese scientists will never give up on their national treasure!!!! I think that Packham guy is just angry that Pandas get more attention than his bats lolz