By Kate Snow
Rock Center Correspondent
Who wouldn’t want to fly across the world and spend a week with giant pandas? They are undeniably cute. Everyone is obsessed with those black and white fuzzy faces. We celebrate when one is born at a zoo. We know their names. We’ll watch a YouTube video of them over and over again. This one, which shows a baby panda sneezing, has more than 150 million hits. I dare you not to click the link.
For this story, we traveled to Chengdu, China, a city of 14 million people. It’s the capital of the Sichuan province in southwest China. Chengdu is known for spicy Sichuan chili dishes that make your tongue go numb, but also for being the hometown of the giant panda. Back in 1987, when it became apparent that pandas were seriously endangered in the wild, the Chinese created the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding. Starting with just six pandas from the wild, they’ve successfully bred more than 100 pandas.
Here, female pandas are monitored constantly to pinpoint the one day of the year – or the few hours -- when they’ll be able to conceive. They are typically artificially inseminated. Test tubes of panda sperm are kept in vats of liquid nitrogen. Mothers stay with their babies for a while but they’re eventually put back on the breeding program so the cycle can start again.
Sarah Bexell, an American who has worked at Chengdu for 13 years, says the lives of the staff revolve around the fertility cycle of the female pandas. “When our cubs are about to arrive, some of our staff live there 24-7,” she said. She’s also a coauthor of a new book called, “Giant Pandas: Born Survivors.”
The cubs I saw on this visit were four months old and just learning to walk. Their fur was soft as silk.
Too much for one species?
The work done at Chengdu and other breeding centers costs millions of dollars a year. Experts believe more money is probably being spent to save the giant panda than any other species in the world.
But is that a good idea?
While this may sound like heresy to panda lovers, is it possible that we’re spending too much to save the giant panda?
“I think we have to make tough choices,” British wildlife expert, Chris Packham, said. “I think that, ultimately, we have to be pragmatic as well as sentimental. You know, we can't allow our heart to rule our conservation head… And if we channel this much into just one species, then many others, which could be far better helped, many other not just species, but communities and ecosystems, could be better protected at the expense of one fluffy, cuddly bear.”
Packham is in the minority here, but a growing number of scientists agree.
Bexell and her colleagues at Chengdu’s breeding center are not among them. They firmly believe the panda is worth saving. And they worry that without the panda as a symbol for the conservation movement, people might not give any money to saving any species at all.
“Where would that money go? Maybe people would go and buy a new iPod instead. You know, instead of throwing that money towards conservation,” Bexell said.
Humans pushed giant pandas to the brink of extinction, Bexell said, and it is up to us to find a way to save them.
“I think pandas are symbolic. We all love them. We all want to share the earth with them. And if we truly cannot save space for giant pandas, what does that say about us as a species? And how could we ever have hope for any of the others if we can't save the one that we profess to love the most?”
Editor's Note: Kate Snow's full report airs Fri., Feb. 22 at 10pm/9c on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams.
Leave a Comment:
They must be saved. What would the WWF do without it's logo?
Perhaps the cost of saving them needs to be re-examined, perhaps more volunteer work (versus paid staff) needs to be looked at...but the idea of NOT saving the Panda, sorry...just doesnt sit well with me.
Let's just flip this on it's head - if this is about money, think about ALL THE MONEY we can make by killing rhino's and elephants for their tusks.
this isnt about the money, and the sooner this world understands money isnt real - it's just a tool - the sooner we can all collectively move forward, build each other up and thrive.
until then, we'll continue to tear each other down, in chase of a few dollars.
Very well put!!
i live in san diego -if money is the issue ask san diego zoo how much they profit from the panda breeding program. major tourist attraction here and well worth the purported 1 million annual payment to china.
Maybe they could give it back to the REAL WWF (WWE), you know the one people actually care about. Stupid bears do nothing for humanity. They just look cute, eat, and cost money.
save the Panda's but, get rid of the politicians..
DS
they are not saying don't save the pandas just spread the wealth so other species can also survive. I love the pandas but there are alot of others that need to be saved desperately. The horney toad in tx are really cute and very threatened.
What an idiotic stance that it isn't "worth it". How much money is wasted annually on other things most wouldn't consider worth it? How about take the cost of one billionaire's megayacht and fund the panda programs? Have these scientists (who are not economists or accountants) looked at how much the panda programs generate in terms of tourist $, zoo visits, merchandise, and so on? Stick to science, not economics.
Many of you either have forgotten or never learned that species come and go - and yes that may include humans some day. Many living things went extinct long before man even put a toe print on this earth. If a species doesn't adapt to the ever changing environment, it dies out.
Yes we should reduce pollution. Yes we should try to preserve any species that can be preserved. But, if the species cannot survive in a natural habitat it will be a futile effort. PErhaps the panda quit reproducing as frequently, so the existing ones would have enough to eat. Perhaps they were adapting until man intervened.
Jessica, #1.1- GREAT! post. (especially 1st half of opening line!)
I'd just like to know how far brought back from the brink of extinction they are now. The article mentioned 100 and it seemed a little obsessive and excessive in some of their practices, like taking the cub away from the Mother so soon and getting the Mother right back out there again. The only problem I have about using "Volunteers", is just that....."USING" them inappropriately to fill in the void where "Money" is taken away from paying actual Staff People who should be doing the job so it (money)can be shifted elsewhere. (Of course, this is in China and I'm talking about the "EXPLOITED VOLUNTEERS" and "PEER SUPPORT" FREE "TRAINED" LABOR RACKET in the United States) It's not today's catch-phrase of "a slippery slope", it's the "given" inch that then takes a mile....then another mile....then another mile....
Still, GREAT! post.
well. the giant pandas would be doing just fine if it weren't for us. so, yeah, it is our responsibility to do whatever we can for them. just because they are not capable of speech does not mean they do not have just as much a right to live as humans do
Troll alert.
Hey Kirby 814
I would rather send my stupid money to save the bears and other wildlife rather then people like you. Have a nice day freeloader!
Who are we, as a species that can't find a way to stop killing each other, to decide what other species should live or die off?
How many children die worldwide because of starvation or something directly related to malnutrition? People really should get their priorities straight. Dingbats like some of these people would be breeding T-Rex and turning them loose.
Hey Danna,
Waaaaahhhh! Go hug a tree!
This is survival of the fittest. Obviously they are supposed to be extinct if they can't survive without human intervention.
I'd eat a panda burger right now if it were offered up.
And how am I a freeloader? I'm at work right now not giving a @!$%# about wildlife. I bet you are at home right now making out your Access card shopping list on my dime.
Kirby 814 - you are a perfect example of what is wrong with the human species.
I cannot believe the arrogance and short sightedness of many people - who think the only value any other living thing has - is in how it benefits humans.
We are responsible for so much killing and destruction, we should do whatever it takes to preserve as many species as we possibly can.
Whatever the cost.
drs-676864, I couldn't have said it better.
Sometimes, its not about what WE want...there's a lot of other factors that must be considered, not the least is: is there still enough pandas left to make a viable population?
If the answer is NO, then all the efforts to save them won't matter - if there is no genetic diversity, then at some point, something will happen and the bulk of remaining pandas will be wiped out.
You can pump as much money into the project, but it just won't matter at some point....you can't buy DNA.
In my opinion, people have our own problems like overpopulation on top of dwindling resources.
As far as I am concerned, if it is not food stock or a major player in the food chain of food stock, let nature take it's course.
This money should be put into scientific research on more resilient food crops and water conservation.
I feel like I am trapped between two huge groups of idiots, on the right, we have folks that want humans to live like animals (dog eat dog, social Darwinism) and on the left by people who want animals to live like humans (animal "rights" ridiculous concept).
Where has all the common sense gone?
truthhurtsattimes - That isn't true. Pandas have always had a very low birth even in the wild. A Panda reaches sexual maturity between 4 and 8 and can reproduce up til around age 20. During those sixteen years the female Panda has a 3 day window each year in which they can become pregnant. In the wild a Panda can only have 1 cub every 2 years. When you combine that with the high mortality rate of the cubs and unsuccessful years of reproduction they really don't stand much of a chance. Given time natural selection would have eliminated this species on it's own. They just are built for long term survival.
Kirby- You're a Fing idiot. You obviously care enough about pandas to click on the damn link and read/comment on the article. Humans like you suck and need to get off this planet! People like you are what's ruining this once beautiful world!
Wow, Jessica, incredibly well said! It's sad how selfish and short-sighted people are. It's not just the principal of saving one species. It's bigger than that. It's conservation in general. It's priorities. We spend so much money on wars, so much wealth is amassed by so few at the expense of the planet, it's just plain pathetic. When these animals are gone, when the forests are gone, how do you think humanity is going to survive? We're approaching a tipping point, and once we cross it, once these species die out, we cannot bring them back. Once we die, we cannot bring ourselves, our species, back. Yes, you can say that the species is dieing out because of evolution, survival of the fittest, etc., but this isn't a natural death for the species, it's a man-made death. It's because of greed and selfishness. Because humans want the world all to themselves. But they fail to realize, with it all to themselves, they will die.
@ Jessica-1170252,
I'm sorry, but socialism has proven to be a failure no matter what. So good luck with your BS.
Why are we responsible for panda's unwillingness to mate?
It would be extremely short sighted to not put the money into saving the giant panda. What this article fails to mention is he amount of money the giant pandas generate. There are many people who go to the zoo in San Diego every year primarily to go see the pandas. Add to that all the money generated from giant panda merchandise and it is more than enough to pay for the entire conservation effort. Even if you completely ignore the ethical ramifications of letting this species go extinct because man destroyed so much of their habitat, from a purely economic standpoint they generate far more money than it is costing to save them.
Jessica, Marie, and the rest of you, The answer is simple take ever dime you put towards your family and give it to the conservation. That way you kill two birds with one stone!
Addy121,
No I care enough about the "let them die out in peace" side of the fence to comment. They are not our problem. Humans have our own problems. Use that panda money to feed PEOPLE. Animal rights activists are plain psychotic, putting the needs of food above human life. Particularly the dog people. In many other countries that dog you love so much would feed an entire village for a week. The only way you could get me to change my mind would be if an IMPORTANT animal, ie. cows/pigs, were in danger of extinction.
I place my concerns where they are most logical. My business and my life are dedicated to solar power. One day in the not too distant future, when all the earth's resources are depleted, you will be the one reaching out to me for help when you can't turn on your precious computer without my help.
Sometimes with things like this they need to make the charitable marketing a little better. There are probably a great number of people including some very wealthy benefactors that want to (and are) contributing money to save this species. But even setting up a website with a number of donation options can go a long way. Like having an option for direct panda donations and then simply asking at the same time if that person would also be willing to contribute a share to other conservation programs as well. Because this species has a lot of sentimental value with people, that sentiment can be used as a catalyst to get donors to give money to other conservation programs as well. Conversely, if conservationists in charge decide that they will let the species die out, they risk alienating a great number of donors who will become bitter about their choice and may not donate in the future.
#1.28 Kirby814: Your sense of values is truly warped. It's the self-centered anthropocentric mindset of you (big time) and many others that I am concerned about. Humans are NOT the center of the Universe. We have done so much damage to this planet by over-breeding that we are causing up to 270 species EACH DAY to become extinct, species that have as much right to live on the Earth as we do. As much right. Every one of them. We don't have the right to take away their lives. The role of humans is as caretakers of the planet and it inhabitants, not supreme beings. If we don't reverse our egocentric mindset very quickly, in addition to causing the extinction of all other creatures who share this planet with us, we will kill off ourselves.
Animal rights activists care about life (all life) and the quality of our lives. It's the pro military wackos and capitalists who are greed focused anti humane individuals that we need to be concerned about. I'd rather send my money to propogate a species then have my tax dollars spent building bombs and weaponry to wipe out those villages that could be fed by one dog. I won't get started on the corporate welfare (bail outs) that lead to cuts in education and conservation to feed the greed of corporate America. There's plenty of food out there and even more politics that go with it. We could feed the world and keep all animals safe (including humans) our proirities however do not allow for that.
Kirby-
I am glad you are fully and wholly aware of your self importance. It is important to have a healthy self esteem. If you hate animals, that is your perogative. I just hope that you don't actually own any. You don't deserve them. You fail to grasp the whole point. Of course we as humans realize the importance of self preservation. But it is truly the wise and broad minded to be ableto see one's place in the entire scheme of things. We are inhabitants of a spectactular place, of which you don't appreciate much as reflected by your selfish views. Diversity of species is pretty amazing. Maybe you would prefer a world where there are only humans and feed animals. I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant, yet intelligent enough to work in a fairly sofisticated industry. Maybe someday, you will have some kind of enlightenment and will be able to experience joy.
Jessica, how much do you make off of the deaths of elephants and rhinos? When you state we don't include me in that group.
I agree with you 100% enneagram1. people need to realize that no species exists for eternity. Eternity is a delusion created by people out of fear of time/aging. all we can do as a species is help ourselves as well as the other species that share this world with us to survive. especially since most of the things that are wrong with our planet, we are the cause of. im willing to bet kirby's stance would change if human survival depended on the intervention of another species.
Tom (comment #1.26) Instead, why not take the money you spend on those really bad for your dog junk treats you buy your dog (maybe you don't have a dog and if you do maybe you don't feed it junky treats, but you get my point:) ), and donate them to the Giant panda efforts instead. With as much as we Americans spend on our pets each year, only a fraction of that huge amount would be needed for the Giant Pandas. Yes, I have a dog and I'm picky about the dog food I buy him, but I save all kinds of money by NOT buying him any junky treats (he gets treats in the form of left-over lean meat we had for dinner--better for him, better for everybody!)
See? No more questionable dog treat ingredients from China, but instead China's national animal symbol gets saved. It's a win-win for everybody!
When it comes to the issue of conservation--We better find a different way of utilizing our planet, it's environment and resources or we will ultimately utilize ourselves into extinction. It's like that old song lyrics "In the year 9595, I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna' be alive, he's taken all this ol' world has to give, and he ain't put back nothin', woa woe!" Only at the rate we are going, it will be a lot sooner than 9595. Yes, some of us are putting back what we as a species have taken. But is it enough? And we better start practicing what we should have learned in kindergarten - If you make the mess, you clean it up!
What? WOW....
Critics', really?
Lets see how you critics' like it when we decide your not worth saving.....
I would ask that the community collapse Kirby814's comments. He seems to have no sense of respect or decency, only ignorance.
Kirby-
Maybe if humans would quit overpopulating/overbreeding we wouldn't have this problem. But since we did and continue to, it IS a problem that we have to face and deal with. What you don't understand is that when a species goes extinct the whole entire ecosystem is affected and it takes a VERY long time to rebalance. One extinction may lead to another, and another, and another. Humans are NOT superior in any way, we rely on things to survive just like they do--so what makes you think you're any better? You'll be reaching out to ME when everything goes extinct but humanity and we are left with absolutely NOTHING to survive because of ignorance and greed. That is when I'll laugh in your face and "let you die out in peace."
Kirby 814, your comment is correct but only in the most dire circumstances. For example, if a nuclear holocaust had destroyed the world's crops I would more than agree with you.
In the meantime, mankind should help the rest of the planet; which means helping the giant pandas.
Why is this even an issue? Some British guy thinks too much of the Chinese money is being spent on Pandas? The Chinese government is funding much of this. The panda is a symbol of China and a source of pride as is the Bald Eagle for America.
Who cares what the British think, they invaded, raped and pillaged China and now they want to pass judgement on them?
We spend too much money on wars and building the war machine - what we spend on trying to save endangered species is nothing compared to that.
Enneagram1 - I would not be in favor of collapsing Kirby's comment. I certainly disagree with him, but as long as he is truly reflecting his beliefs in his posts, and not breaking the rules of the moderator, then let him post and in turn you and I and others can reply in efforts to be the best influence we can be. It is only through exposure to more information that people like Kirby will become more aware of the issues involved.
Lisa C: You are a kind person to cut this Kirby poster some slack; but I doubt that he is open to any logical reasoning. Unaware of his multiple blessings, his insensitive mind is set. His own lifestyle is all that matters to him, the rest of the world be damned. He got what he wanted in this forum, which was to push buttons. I'd rather walk in my shoes than his.
They need to releas some of the Pandas into the "wild" and if they can make it on their own. And do they spend the same amount of money to save other species? or only the "cute cuddly ones"??
Kirby is a waste of human flesh. By his own standards, he should be killed and eaten (I know, it would be nasty, just horrible, but still...)
All the people posting on here about how "humans have enough of their own problems" and "let nature take its course" and how anybody who cares about animal rights is a horrible moronic dipsh!t make me sick. They are stuck in the infantile stage of mental and moral development: if it isn't about them and satisfying their own personal needs, then it's of no value. To them, an advanced level of moral and intellectual development, one that views the world through a lens outside of themselves, is just "stupid." These people don't have the capacity to understand what simpletons they are. They are fixated and incapable of learning. It is pointless to argue with them.
Hi Enneagram1 - I do not know, amongst all the Kirbys out there, who may one day have a paradigm shift, or where in the chain of the link of events my words fit in that paradigm shift.. As long as I have done my best to be the best influence I can be, then I have done my part, and the results are out of my hands.
I agree with you about we humans being caretakers of this planet. If we continue falling down on that job, our failure will continue to bite us on the butt, and even worse.
I just got hold of the minutes of the last Giant Panda meeting. It seems, by a unanimous vote, they have decided the Kirby 814 is a planetary disgrace, a science illiterate, and is not worth saving.
Guess you wankers have never heard of the 1st Amendment either. Blocking my comments? Guess I woke up in North Korea this morning... smh
Kirby 814:
You guess? Don't waste your time guessing.
If you are posting from the United States of America, then you should stop guessing about all those things. You can know this with certainty. The First Amendment has no relevance in a privately owned forum.
Your "comments" don't even rise to the level of drivel.
I'm guessing that you are about 12 years old. That's how you come across in your posts. Certainly if you were older, you would have learned something; like compassion, for instance. "Collapsing" is not the same as "blocking" in this forum. You are free to say what you wish; however, you have proven that you have nothing worthwhile to offer because you are ignorant. Therefore, I am suggesting that the rest of us just ignore you.
Collapsing someones posts just because you disagree with them is bull@!$%#!
Kirby did not call any one any names or attack anyone directly, so there is no need to collapse his posts.
Personally, I agree with most of what he has said and disagree with most of the rest of you but, I'm not trying to infringe on any of y'alls rights and silence your opinions. What kind of crap is that?
This is supposed to be a forum for debate so naturally we will not all agree all the time. I thought this was a pretty rational conversation till someone suggested mob mentality type censure.
And I for one,(just speaking for myself) am far, FAR, far from some "pro military" "greedy capitalist" dog kicking, gun nut, RWNJ and just because someone thinks that human life is infinitely more valuable than animal life does not automatically brand them so. I personally feel like you animal rights extremists give liberals a bad name.
Kirby -
A world without "pandas" (ie. Earth's natural wondors) wouldn't be worth a human living in. Why feed the people to exist in a pathetic world without "pandas"?
"Kirby 814" is literally too stupid to insult.
Interesting how many people believe humans are the center of the universe. Animals were here before us, and will be here after us. They own this planet.
I disagree with you. The animals are not in control here; unfortunately humans are in control of their fate, and we have not made very wise choices. They will not survive us - perhaps the cockroach will, but nothing else.
Kirby: I applaud your committment to solar energy. Alternative power sources are NEEDED and extremely important as are conservation efforts. People can choose to promote and support causes according to their personal priorities. I never block anyone who comments-I might disagree with them but I DO NOT believe in censorship.
save the panda? well, what would "pandas are awesome" do without the panda? i'd just be "are awesome"
No, this a**hole called me psychotic, and I may not have lit into him had he not.
Hey kirby if you are on here commenting while at work you are most definitely a mooch. Commenting on a panda story on the net is not work and you are mooching off your boss. They pay you to work not surf the net for stories to comment on.
with 8 billion people in the world, and every one of them wanting a modern western life-style... i'm afraid most wildlife is going be extinct soon
so will the humans
Sad, but true.
Eventually, Mother Nature will surely find a way to take care of the human overpopulation problem.
We're probably not going to like her solution very much.
Nat'l Geo article stated that all the burned carbon fuels in the world, wood, coal, oil, gas, are being burned at a rate that it would take 3.5 earths to supply it on a sustained basis. So like a drunken sailor blowing his monthly paycheck in a weekend having a good time, the people are burning the available fuel at a rate they cannot replenish. How do we think that's gonna end ?
Nothing is worse for this planet than humans. Simply put, if humans die off without killing every other living thing on earth, the world is SAVED!
Only humans create "problems". All other life just follows their instincts and genetic codes. If humans solve a problem, it's only possible because they created the problem in the first place. Without us, no problems. Ever.
Save the pandas. The only reason that species is struggling is because we're here. The least we can do is keep 'em around for awhile longer.
Ok, so you "save the pandas".....
where are you going to PUT them? In a zoo? There isn't any habitat left for them (thanks to humans), thats why their numbers are so horribly low to begin with.
I get it....spend billions of dollars 'saving' them, only to have them exist in zoos. How 'great' is that? Would that truly be an example of a panda at that point?
Demographers are predicting that the world population will begin to decline in 50 years or so as more women are educated and contraceptives spread to developing countries.
The solution has nothing to do with "mother nature." This will present another problem, however. Most of our institutions are based on the assumption of growth. At some point, this will not be possible and we will need to figure out how to design companies that are successful without growing.
bob douglas-1120933
Most wildlife, 99.9% to be precise, has already gone extinct with the VAST majority happening LONG before mankind came along. It's the natural process and we are only a small, and probably short, influence on the continuing process of evolution.
The least we can do for them is recreate their habitat. Easy to do, if we can agree to do the right thing.
IReadyou
And in 1977 Jimmy Carter told us all that within a decade the demand for oil would outpace the worlds ability to produce it. In fact such "we're about to run out of oil" predictions go all the way back to the late 1880's.
Backcountry164, you should state that those extinctions happening before our industrial revolution have been spread out over hundred's of millions of years.
Jet-- there would be plenty of places for pandas ( and animals in general ) if we didn't continuously destroy land to build more subways and walmarts even though there's one five seconds down the road!
A farmer around my area had a beautiful farm and recently sold it to walmart so they can build ANOTHER unnecessary building (there is one 5-10 minutes away). What once was a beautiful, natural area with lots of animals is now nothing but another huge ugly walmart and traffic congestion...
You are correct. At least 90% of all beings living on the Earth were extinct before humans invaded the planet. However, each of those extinctions took millions of years to die out, whereas since our arrival, we are eliminating 270 species PER DAY. At this rate, we will be the only ones left - and not for very long because we will have poisoned all the resources we need to survive.
Humans, the most dangerous animal on this planet, period.
I think we, as a species, have already established we're jerks.
Certainly, the most destructive and land consuming.
We need to re-channel all this money being spent on saving endangered species into "defense" spending. The sooner we eradicate humans from the earth the better it will be for the animals, the environment and the universe.
Problem solved!
I would suggest everyone buy a hunting and fishing license even if you don't hunt or fish. Also, a federal and state duck stamp. That money all goes to conservation. As far as Pandas being bred artificially and made to live in a zoo, I think that is cruel and unjust punishment, since they will never be able to make it in the wild on their own. Where is PETA on this one?
If humans created the problem and we did, we are also responsible for fixing it. We have made a mess out of this planet, mostly for money and greed. I agree with all who have said that Mother Nature will solve the human problem for us if we do not clean up our act. Soon. And for sure, the solution will be very ugly. Those who will have to endure it with no sure bet of survival will look back at us and say, Why did they not.....?
a---rand, the zoos of the past were for the most part, horrible.
Most contemporary zoos have been modernized into wonderful places. (Of course, this means city or government zoos. Most 'roadside' zoos are decrepid and should be shut down.)
A---rand. I agree with your first sentence,so much so that I gave you a thumbs up in spite of the fact that I do not agree with your last sentence.
Buying hunting and fishing licences AND federal and state duck stamps/upland game bird stamps helps conservation efforts. ALL waterfowl get helped by wetland conservation, whether game fowl or protected species.
I do disagree with your last sentence. With the kind of conditions today in really good zoos and preserves, animals live out good and happy lives. As far as zoos that are not up to high standards, those are the ones that need to be either put out of business or brought up to standard. What would be cruel and unusual punishment is allowing the Panda to go extinct without doing our best to prevent it.
Giant Pandas have the inalienable right to be saved, live in zones dedicated to them, have enough bamboo shoots to nosh on. Anyone suggesting that certain species should face extinction because of this or that- must be legally estopped. Animals bring so much joy- like the pandas-koalas,tigers,elephants,birds,seals,whales etc. and people can learn from them. The ivory trade killing elephants for the sake of their ivories and those in its trade+countries condoning such brutality must be expelled from UN panels until they act.
I think one of the biggest problems this species has is it's unwillingness to propagate and save it's own species. It's problem breeding habits have been well documented. Maybe the species has run it's course and it's time the panda goes the way of the dinosaur.
@wisconsinoutlaw - you may be right perhaps they know better and had enough with us..our arrogance lies both in the destruction and saving of this planet
Panda's have inalienable rights and you expect the UN to actually do something. The Panda's not the only one who's doomed here.
"Inalienable" means the right cannot be taken away from them, and it is plainly obvious that we ARE taking that right away. Also, the flip side of any right is responsibility. If pandas as a species want to survive, they need to share traits of other surviving species. However, with their very specialized diet and breeding cycle, they are clearly a 'fragile' species.
Having said that, we SHOULD try to protect and save this species since it is such a recognizable icon, however, perhaps the main thrust of the protection should be on habitat issues and anti-poaching measures?
I stand corrected they eat more than one thing, they just prefer Bamboo, but if they won't breed they are still toast!
They don't even reproduce on their own and when we artificially reproduce them we are condemning them to a life in a cage.
What was described in the story is a 'panda mill' pure and simple.
We would all agree that doing this to dogs is cruel and should be stopped, but its ok to do it to pandas?
Dogs don't have a three day breeding window.
So that makes it alright then?
You breed a whole population of pandas (inhumanely) from a nonviable population (that means its not large enough to guarantee genetic versatility) and the only thing you get is a population of pandas that are so genetically alike that they have no protection from the normal things that can dessimate their population.
This isn't hard...matter of fact, cheetahs are facing the same situation.
One virus hits, and the whole population goes, because no one has any way to fight it and survive. Genetic diversity serves a purpose, and a very good one.
Mimi, do you realize that some people give money to save polar bears and seals. And did you ever take the time to contemplate that those polar bears eat the seals. But the WWF will keep taking the $ even when their solutions defy logic.
clem - (#4.10) Both species are important for balance of nature.
Lisa C-5522681
LOL! "Nature" will balance itself regardless of which species are available. It's been happening for billions of years. 99.9% of species are already extinct.
99.9% extinct over hundred's of millions of years is not relevant to the equivalent rates of extinction in the last 300 years.
Backcountry and Reddles --correct and correct.
Backcountry - yes, nature always balances back regardless, after all it balanced back from things like the Permian Extinction, the the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, the other Extinction Level Events that happened.
Reddles - yes, the equivalent rates happening today are truly alarming, because it's not at a normal rate of change/evolution. We humans have destroyed a huge amount of natural habitat all over the world. (Just an aside -I wonder how many potential pharmaceuticals went extinct before even being discovered in the Amazon Rain forest? Or the Peruvian Jungle?) We are intricately interwoven with the environment we evolved in. Pandas are a part of that. We definitely do not have all the puzzle pieces.
The Giant Pandas are wondering if humans are worth saving!
The Giant Panda's have given up. They only eat bamboo and they won't breed. It's over.
The jury's still out on the human issue. However, judging by the arrogant ignorance demonstrated here the answer may be 'negative.'
They aren't spending millions to save the Panda's. They are spending millions to delay their extinction. Shy of giving them back their habitat, which isn't going to happen, it's no longer an "if" but a "when".
Perhaps. But that's what they said about the Bald Eagle and the Grey Wolf.
The Bald Eagle and the Grey Wolf are able to reproduce at much higher rater than a Panda can. Once they became protected it was reflectively easy for their populations to recover. Honestly with Panda's low birth rate I don't think they would have survived as a species even without human interference. Granted their extinction would have taken a much longer time but I think it was still inevitable.
And the Whooping Crane and the Peregrine Falcon. However, it takes decades of hard work, a big pile of money and a determination most do not have to recover a species on the brink. It is far better, healthier and cheaper to leave ecosystems intact. We do NOT need another baby, shopping mall, or suburban neighborhood anywhere on this planet. But, we will not stop either, that is for sure.
Sialia
Just like you don't NEED that computer you're using. Maybe you should give up all of the things you don't need for the betterment of the planet. Or are you suggesting that only OTHER people should do that??
lets see the panda EATS ONE THING? i would say if the panda were meant to be its diet would have some variety
libtards.... 85% of all extinctions happened before man..... i realize you THINK you are important... but no you are just a pimple on the elephants rear
Use of the term 'libtards' merely demonstrates that you lack the intellect to come up with a truly meaningful argument.
Moving on to what little substance there was in your comment, is it your position that since many extinctions occurred prior to man (probably much higher than 85%, but nice try), it is okay for man to drive more species into extinction? Wow, who is arrogant now.
There are quite a few specialized species, and yes they die when they can't adapt, but the fact is they are dying out because of our actions. If a natural disaster destroyed the bamboo forests, that'd be one thing.... but us taking their habitat from them is another.
Let a few loose in my neighborhood. There's plenty of runaway bamboo to keep a small group fed for decades.
I agree they should be saved. However...
Bauer did NOT say kill them. He's saying if they were meant to survive they would have evolved. i.e., we're keeping the old man on the respirator.
Bauer said 85%, maybe he's wrong, but you "corrected" him with a "probably". That is at least equally ignorant.
You sum up with "Wow, who is arrogant now" when you clearly can't even comprehend what he is saying and "correct" him with vague data.
To conclude, you reinforced why he thinks your type are "libtards" BEFORE you responded. I propose you both think before you type.
Now, can we all be realistic adults and at least admit that we're saving the pandas because we humans want to, not because we actually should?
and you are the puss inside the pimple! Extinction is part of the evolutionary process...but habitat destruction is not!
Pandas actually eat more than 1 thing. They just prefer to eat bamboo, but they've been documented eating other things including meat etc.
Hey, you're a Republican though. You don't need facts, you just go with your gut and the world will change according to your whims.
Also "culture of life" and such.
Wonderful SumFunGi. Another name caller.
Just because we took their habitat during our evolution does not mean they have had no opportunity to evolve. They clearly weren't meant to evolve if they are that specific in dietary means. Now I don't see where we're planning to return their habitat, so it is their destinty to go extinct unless we decide we want to arbirarily save them. This is a human choice. It is not inherently wrong to let the species die. Some of us choose to save them because we enjoy them. Calling people names because of differing opinions is certainly less evolved and less mature than the pandas in question.
"Hey, you're a Republican though. You don't need facts, you just go with your gut and the world will change according to your whims."
Your ignorance is astounding.
Greg
Some info from a libtard.
Please use correct terms. If pandas had 'evolved' they would no longer be pandas. The correct term you are looking for is adapted. Other than ignorant usage of biological terms, the point is essentially correct. The caveat exists though, that if humans had not destroyed over 80% of their habitat and food source, they wouldn't have needed to adapt.
In the late 80s, the thought was that 90% of the species that had ever existed were already extinct. However this can never be more than an estimation. Even if every species that ever lived was represented in the fossil record, we would have no way to know that, thus our estimation on how many species have existed throughout time is also just that, an estimation. Quibbling about splitting hairs on a number that can never be more than an estimation shows equal ignorance on both sides.
I think his point was comprehended perfectly well. The vast majority of species went extinct before humans could have any effect on them, is his point. It's also irrelevant. Humans DID destroy this species ecosystems and drive them to the brink of extinction. What happened before humans arrived on the scene doesn't influnce that fact one way or another.
Assuming that the other side is incapable of rational and critical thinking is a tragic flaw in both the democratic and republican bases. Robert Heinlein, through his character Lazarus Long, once wrote, "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend."
No. As a species, we have driven this species, and others, to the brink of extinction. Accountability (that thing that your side preaches and claims we don't have) demands that we recognize this. Recognizing this creates a moral obligation (responsibility, that other thing your side preaches, and claims we do not have) to at least TRY to save them. The fact that they are cute likely means we are trying harder than with other species.
Dave2001 - YOU ARE AWESOME! Thanks for saying that..
Pandas eat more than bamboo. they ARE bears afterall. They can and eat meat.
Rachael--they are not true bears.
Pandas actually belong to the raccoon family.
And the raccoon family is as closely related to dogs and cats and seals. Because the next taxonomical division up is the order, and their order is carnivora.
The San Diego Zoo which has some of the most endangered species in the world in captive breeding programs knows the answer to this question. Millions of people a year come from all over the world to see the Pandas which in turn funnels money into the zoo so the zoo can continue to work to save endangered species.
If the Pandas are the face of endangered animals so be it. Many zoos are involved in this program as well. Let's not over look that fact while we are slinging mud at the Panda people.
too bad we don't have the same options for some humans on earth these days
Not some, MOST!!!!
My question is, are the critics worth saving?
Greed of man kind is what cause loss of many things. Most of all living creatures. If we did not see greed and take over of habitat, many things would not be indangered.
humans destroy whatever they touch... soon, they will be next....
Having a bad day.....huh?
This story like so many on "the news" these days just shows how screwed up our world is. The woman interviewed about saving pandas in China, (while I'm sure is genuinely concerned for their existence) speaks of them as I wish we would hear people speak about saving human lives. We have 4,000 babies killed each day in America alone, (not to mention the millions aborted in China), in the womb of the mother and yet, no one seems to be too concerned with the plight of humans in the world! Read her own words:
"Humans pushed giant pandas to the brink of extinction, Bexell said, and it is up to us to find a way to save them.
...And how could we ever have hope for any of the others if we can't save the one that we profess to love the most?”
I would suggest we exchange the terms giant pandas for human beings--how much longer will the world turn a blind eye to our own extermination?
Our own extermination? 7,000,000,000 and quickly climbing............
Did humans intervene with the Do Do birds evolution/extinction ?
Yes, the Dodo was hunted to extinction by Europeans. Of course, the Dodo didn't help matters by being completely ignorant of the threat posed by humans. But you really can't blame them, they lived in an environment mostly devoid of predators until humans came along.
There was a reason they called them Dodos....
Richard, I do not understand smart ass responses to something as tragic as human caused extinction. I really do not get it.
The dodo did not exhibit stupidity when the dodo was oblivious to the newly arrived humans in it's environment. Islands exist where polar bears used to peacefully watch people - until they learned what a rifle was. The Galapagos Islands are filled with species known to be friendly to humans when first discovered.
Maybe we shouldn't spend so much money on people who are in prison, paying for their food and shelter with our tax money. Humans are the ones not worth saving. Poor inocent animals that we pushed out of their homes to make our own. I think we owe them something.
I agree.
I completely agree. Some of those people live better in prison than people outside of prison do. How is that for justice?
Just last month there were articles out about how research was figuring out that panda blood could be used as medicine. So now this month it isn't worth even trying to save one of the most adoarable animals on the planets? I think something isn't quite right with that way of thinking. If we can help them, they may can help us in return!
How many of you are willing to dump your lawns in favor of restoring a native ecosystem on your property? Plants are the foundation of any healthy ecosystem and we tear out natives only to replace them with garbage that does not belong here. Piles of plants with Asian roots. We call this landscaping and the native plants of north America? We label them weeds. So...again. How much of your lawn is going to disappear this summer in favor of the plants that naturally grow in your region. This all by itself would go a long way to restoring the function of this planet. But, most are horrified by this idea. It is a real cultural change, not a lot of internet talk.
Monica, you bring up an excellent point about there being a possible medical discovery in Panda Blood. We just don't know what there may be out in the wild or amongst the known animal/plant life that could be helpful to us some day. Already we have lost much through habitat loss throughout the world. We would do ourselves and our environment a favor by learning to live in harmony with it instead of in competition and greed against it. If we utilize the best of modern technology and the best of ancient wisdom and technology, we might have a fighting chance to repair this ole' earth and live meaningfully, joyfully, and productively - even have a free enterprise system that has enough checks and balances to preserve what's most important.
Sialia, exactly. The modern version of landscaping with the grass lawn is one of the biggest ecological disasters of all time. Everyone should try to switch to landscaping with whatever the native-plant system in their area is. Some non-natives can be added if not destructively invasive.
Coming back to this thread, I just noticed the reference to lawns that Sialia and 100Reddles made about grass lawn. And Bermuda grass and crab grass (aren't they related?) are the most difficult to get rid of, and can't just be deep mulched away due to their extensive rhizome system. I know this is off topic, but I had to chime in:) I am slowly digging up my lawn both front and back and replacing it with edibles and rock landscaping. It's slow going but eventually a few years down the road--a much better ecologically sound front and back yard and more food to eat, and much less water used to achieve it. Lawns are also very water intensive and I live in Bakersfield, CA so water conservation is important. One of the native edibles here is Yucca. The blossoms are good in salads, and the roots are edible. I've collected seeds this last fall, and will be planting the seeds soon. I am planning to eventually have only a 'token' patch of lawn front and back. This may sound odd, but I've wondered if a type of sedge referred to as 'ground almond" would make a good lawn--I'd have to be sure the area was totally encircled by a cement edge 3 inches wide and 3 feet deep though. Any thoughts on that?
I don't think it is a matter of money going to the pandas that would go to something else. People give money to "save the pandas" that might not give to a vague conservation project. Ex: my daughter loves pandas. We have over the years traveled to all the zoos in the US with pandas and have spent our money there, bought souvenirs, and even paid for a behind the scenes your to learn more about pandas. We would have never went to three of these zoos without the pandas. Our money was used to support the total conservation efforts of the zoos. Pandas are symbols that draw in dollars.
I say people aren't worth saving!
Then save the planet. There is a cause anyone could get behind.
"Save the planet", their is a phrase I never understand.
The planet will be fine, this planet has been far more hostile in past. We can just keep doing what we are doing (and we will) and the planet will be fine.
At some point in the future it will make some minor adjustments and rid itself of the nasty virus and start over.
What an imbecile for saying that? Every single animal species is worth saving.
Carlos is so right. We humans are so stupid ... starting with so called "wildlife expert" Chris Packham who suggests we search our hearts to see whether panda conservation is really all about saving one "fluffy, cuddly bear.”
I think that even conservationists miss the point about endangered species.
For years there has been a dispute between jaguar conservationists in the US and (some) jaguar conservationists in Mexico and Central America about whether we are wasting our time and money trying to reestablish jaguar populations here ... when jaguar conservation down south is more likely to bear fruit. So, what?
Endangered species conservation isn't about saving nature's icons ... if it was about that, we'd all be pouring our money into building zoos.
It is intact nature that we are after. Habitat systems capable of supporting panda populations in as many places as possible. Habitat systems capable of supporting jaguars in as many places as possible, and tigers and elephants and other animals that serve as umbrella species.
Maybe he was just trying to add to the dialogue. But, it is stunning that Mr. Packham would use the same argument against expenditures on panda conservation that anti-endangered species act wackos have used against efforts to save the snail darter. (After all, it's just a stupid little fish.)
What an absolutely reckless path to go down. What a perfect recipe for failure. Endangered species rationing? In the case of the panda, China has already given up on preserving the last handful of siberian tigers in its territory. Talk about stupid!
Our problem is not that we spend too much money on the conservation of individual species. It's not.
Our problem is that we are arrogant enough to "put a price" on the value of a particular effort. That's economics, fool ... not science.
Makes me crazy!
What is the cost of saving endangered species? I would say our civilization is then at risk. We are the ones who endanger and then we would withdraw our money and spend it on war, clothing, new cars, more inventions, etc. we don't need. We are selfish people only looking out for what we want. Pandas deserve every effort to help them.
Just put the whole operation into a reasonable budget and we won't have to be asking this question.