Chris Packham says, "Pull the plug on pandas."

[kabuki_KILLER]

I read this article this morning and was enraged.

'Pull the plug' on pandas, naturalist says - World environment- msnbc.com

Heavily influenced by my deep ecologist professor back in my pre-med days (not that long ago, actually), I found this appalling. I for one, feel people should be entitled to say what they feel, but someone with this much influence should think more responsibly.

The decline of one species can effect the entire environment in which it resides. Since pandas eat the bamboo where they live, if they ceased to exist, bamboo would grow like weeds, along with the animals that live in it, possibly causing trouble for people and other species living near that habitat. It's all a web. Break one link and the rest crumble, following suit.

Arguably, new species are created every day, but evolution takes time and at this rate, our earth is going to smitherines. The ideal thing to do would be to leave the earth alone and live naturally, but if that's not possible, it's important to raise awareness. I believe that Packham feels the way he does because pandas from China are too far away from home for him and he's tired of trying to get uncooperative locals where pandas naturally live to get with the program. He may feel pandas are hard to relate to, but in truth, every species has a purpose and keeps another (or several species) in check. The only thing the panda is guilty of is being overly cute, so people sometimes don't take it seriously.

Don't even get me started on the tigers. Coincidentally, both animals Packham believes should be abandoned are east asian species and genres.

 

[LMD84]

i saw this on the news this morning and they were interviewing him. i can't believe he thinks that we should stop spending money on them and just let them die off. he basically said on gmtv that there are so many other animals in the world that we could spend money on, 1 type of animal doesn't matter.

what an ass! i don't think pandas should be left to die. we should continue to help them in any way possible

 

[kabuki_KILLER]

My sentiments exactly. It was one of those interviews that you watch and have to watch again because you're stunned by what they just said on public media. This is not a good image you want to project.

I can understand, for him, this is what's practical...in the short-term (at least economically). Any species dying in the wild will have long term consequences that we don't necessarily see, being cooped up in our buildings our whole lives. Everything matters.

He's applying the strategies "survival of the fittest" and the common war tactic, "in times of crisis, preserve your strongest warriors to fight another day. To hell with the computer geek that can't even shoot a cannon." What about after the war? That's all fine and dandy in the human realm because we can repopulate the same species, but once a species is gone, it's done.

 

[Tete-A-Tint]

While I don't know much about this Chris Packham fellow, I am a biology major at University of California, Irvine.
I think that perhaps he did go a little too far in his statements, especially for network television.

However, let's not misrepresent his point-of-view. He is arguing that the money spent on preserving this species (giant panda) is "too much." I think what's important to ask is, how much is too much, and who's money is it anyway. His point of view is simple, nature and evolutionary factors have pushed a species into a corner and we humans are attempting to fight that which isn't a good idea (in his opinion). Giant pandas only eat 1 type of bamboo! There are over a 1000 species of bamboo; the panda only eats one kind! (Wiki it if you don't believe me). But the panda is not even well adapted to eating bamboo--it can't even digest cellulose (not that many animals can, but other animals choose to eat other things). They only mate every other year and only have two cubs at one time, usually choosing to sacrifice one of them in the wild. They are not exactly "well adapted" animals. If we let nature take it's course, yeah, they probably would be extinct (that is his opinion, and other reputable persons agree).

One might argue that pandas were only ever endangered because humans were pushing them to extinction. So we might as well try and put out the fire we set, if you will.

But as Kabuki says, if we let one link break, the rest (of the ecosystem) can crumble. In the same way, if we strengthen the number of one link vastly above nature's trend, we can also cause catastrophic damage and we have no way of knowing what our influences my cause.

Anyway, this is purely my opinion:

I love pandas. I'll put up pics of my room to prove it. I am Chinese-American, I greatly identify with this national icon. But I also realize that the cute cuddly nature of this species is a huge influence on the funding that goes to "rescue" them. It sewer rats were endangered, no one would care. And they probably probably play a bigger role in the urban ecosystem than pandas do in the mountains.

PS. I don't think Chris Packham has a problem with Asian animals; he's a biologist, not a racist.

 

[Tete-A-Tint]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabuki_KILLER I can understand, for him, this is what's practical...in the short-term (at least economically). Any species dying in the wild will have long term consequences that we don't necessarily see, being cooped up in our buildings our whole lives. Everything matters.

I agree, we do not know what the consequences of any action may be. So why should we "preserve" a species? Why should we breed hundreds of extra pandas in captivity and put them in the so-called "wild" reserve lands when we don't know what the consequences of having so many are?


Quote:

Originally Posted by kabuki_KILLER He's applying the strategies "survival of the fittest" and the common war tactic, "in times of crisis, preserve your strongest warriors to fight another day. To hell with the computer geek that can't even shoot a cannon." What about after the war? That's all fine and dandy in the human realm because we can repopulate the same species, but once a species is gone, it's done.

"Survival of the fittest" is not just a war tactic, it was used (not by Darwin, btw) by later evolutionist Herbert Spencer to describe Darwin's theory.
The "war" doesn't end--it is constantly ongoing.
Yes, as humans we can repopulate the same species but why? You still haven't provided any reason why we should do this other than, because they are dying--which isn't a reason, it's a statement of truth, a description.
Pandas were (past tense) endangered. We stepped in. We did it back then without reason. Why did we? Why do we continue?

 

[kabuki_KILLER]

Pandas raise so much support because they're "cute" and this often comes with positive and negative feelings toward a species. Giving up or helping species is not only a scientific concern, but a social one as well. Part of the panda's appeal is that it is popular because it is cute. In that sense, pandas have an unfair advantage to the sewer rat, which not a lot of people would want to see.

Saying that sewer rats are more important to an ecosystem than pandas has no basis. The reason is that humans live in cities, suburbs, and the country. We interact with them and not with pandas. Whatever happens to the panda or whatever good they do, most of the human population does not know of or even care.

Although some people believe we're spending too much on this species, which is a matter of debate that can go any way, it does not justify that pandas will die out if you stop giving as much money or that they SHOULD just go extinct because they're "weak and useless." A problem I find with many funds is that they rely too much on money and try to tack a price on everything. Perhaps Mr. Packham should take up his issues with fundraisers and administration about where all that money goes before stating that they should just abandon a species altogether.

I'm not accusing all fundraisers for causes of ill-doing, but a number of them do give everyone a bad name. I'm glad for all the ones that do everything they promise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tete-A-Tint "Survival of the fittest" is not just a war tactic, it was used (not by Darwin, btw) by later evolutionist Herbert Spencer to describe Darwin's theory. The "war" doesn't end--it is constantly ongoing. Yes, as humans we can repopulate the same species but why? You still haven't provided any reason why we should do this other than, because they are dying--which isn't a reason, it's a statement of truth, a description. Pandas were (past tense) endangered. We stepped in. We did it back then without reason. Why did we? Why do we continue?

I indicated that the war tactic was the second, not the first, "survival of the fittest."

I guess you could call the "war" a mere chain of battles, then. =P I tend to not make A+ grade papers when I'm furious, anyways. >.< Once, I misspelled 'Penicillin' and that's the name of my favorite band too.

 

[xsnowwhite]

I haven't heard this before, but wow seriously that is a terrible thing to say! I would be so sad if pandas were forever gone.

 

[hello_my_apple]

maybe we should lock him somewhere with no food or water and let him die off! im sure noone would miss him now

.