Let pandas die out

[0iD]

Let pandas die out, says British naturalist
A rather controversial standpoint from a popular TV naturalist.

Conservationists should "pull the plug" on giant pandas and let them die out, according to BBC presenter and naturalist Chris Packham.

"Here's a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac," Packham told Radio Times magazine.

The 48-year-old believes that money spent on conserving the panda would be better invested in other animals as the species is not strong enough to survive alone.

"It's not a strong species. Unfortunately it's big and cute and it's a symbol of the WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) -- and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation."

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

I'm sure the chairman & founder of the PWD (Pandi World Domination) will have something to say about that.

[Andeh13]

Surely we could use the same logic against AIDs, Africa & the majority of aid we supply to the rest of the world?

[oolon]

I have been trying to do my bit! Just been playing "Overlord 2", where you get to kill a number of Giant panda, and they definitely are not friendly. I did love the commentary from your mistress Kelda at point, "I am sure that fur would look better to me."

[format]

TAKTAK will not be best pleased.

[shaithis]

Bagsy the first "panda foot ashtray"!

Surely we should try and keep every species alive? Perhaps the pandas (even in their greatly diminished numbers) do perform some great service to the environment.

Unlikely, but it's one of those things you wouldn't know until they are gone.

[dave87]

Where's TakTak when you need him eh?


In all seriousness I can see the argument, though how about continuing to foster them in a zoo like environment, and limiting spending in situations where nature would otherwise take its course?

[SeriousSam]

The real solution is to let humans die out, that way nature can take its course without our interference

[Georgy291]

Taktak ......

[Funkstar]

The real solution is to let humans die out, that way nature can take its course without our interference

And pandas still die out because they are essentially stupid.

They only eat something that gives them next to no nutrients, so have to eat for something like 90% of their day. They live alone so never see a mate, and even if they do, they struggle to actually mate and have little pandas.

I can totally see the point to this opinion. Can we not just sequence the DNA, effectively "backing them up"?

[Syllopsium]

Surely we could use the same logic against AIDs, Africa & the majority of aid we supply to the rest of the world?

It's not really a good idea to lump HIV+ into the same category as the other two. Some of Africa is doing ok (quite a lot appears not to be, though..).

People are arguing that in some cases the aid supplied is subsisting a population the land can't support - in that case the argument for reducing aid does become an interesting one. That's provided the corrupt government in the area isn't screwing over the inhabitants, of course.

PK

[nvening]

It's not really a good idea to lump HIV+ into the same category as the other two. Some of Africa is doing ok (quite a lot appears not to be, though..).

People are arguing that in some cases the aid supplied is subsisting a population the land can't support - in that case the argument for reducing aid does become an interesting one. That's provided the corrupt government in the area isn't screwing over the inhabitants, of course.

PK

Just remember to note in the UK we import 50% of our food

[IBM]

Just remember to note in the UK we import 50% of our food

Yeah, and don't forget to refuse Andehh antibiotics next time he's got an infection....

[Lucio]

Ironically the Google ad is coming up with "Work with Panda's in China"

I totally get the idea that we've got to accept things as a lost cause, but the bigger picture analysis makes me wonder if we give up on this cause, won't it make it easier to give up on other similiar causes further down the line?

More importantly, we *really* don't know what is and isn't important with regards to the world eco-system, and by letting one species die out, it might have a knock on effect further down the line with disaterious consequences.

[ajones]

I vote we put Packham in a cage with a rampant panda, and let nature decide who is the weaker species....

[stevie lee]

the way i see it (as a member of PWD) pandas are seen as cute and cuddly, kids and parents then go "awww how cute, lets donate money to save the really cute thing".

if theres no pandas the WWF will have to find another marketing ploy animal. none of the rest are actually good enough to attract the kids and parents to donate.

i suppose they could use the killer whale, everyones heard of them, but once the kids find out that they eat the cute cuddly penguings and baby seals, would they want to donate money to save 'baby seal and penguin murderers'.

so, the only endagered animal that the WWF can use, is the panda, due to it being cute and due to it not eating any other cute or cuddly things. it only damages the bamboo, which grows back pretty quick anyhow.

the panda has to stay alive, so the WWF can try to save the rest, which no-one cares about.


my 2p anyhow.

[Zak33]

The real solution is to let humans die out, that way nature can take its course without our interference

hey.. we're all working on that right now.. just give us a little more time