In the current issue of Discover there is a blurb announcing that Chinese zookeepers plan on using Viagra to help the Panda reproduce as the male Panda can only sustain an erection for 30 seconds at a time.
Here: http://www.nature-net.com/bears/panda.html it tells us that 99% of the Panda’s diet is bamboo, their intestinal system is inefficient and they feed over 12-16 hours per day. Additionally, the site offers a lot of facts that make you realize how fragile the Panda really is.
Considering that there are estimated to only be 700-1000 Panda left in the wild, does it not seem like they are an abberation, a mistake destined to die out as a result of natural selection?
Are we to blame for a species (what is the plural of species?) extinction or should we embrace it, knowing that it is evolution running it’s course? Why do we think we can save the Panda, hell, why do we care?!! Perhaps we don’t care to think of ourselves as predators…wiping out another mammal?
I suppose this should have gone into GD…Manhattan, feel free to move it if you wish.
The problem is, we are wiping out to many species. Some species (the snail darter and perhaps even the panda) are evolutionary dead ends. However, the california condor (for example) was a robust species that has slowly had its are decreased.
The question is, as you ask, is this evolution running it’s course. The answer is, yes. However, we shouldn’t embrace it. Every mass extinction recorded in the fossil records was proceeded by a decrease in the number of species (particularly as recorded by the increase in the ration of one family at the expense of all others in large animals. See Robert Bakker,* The Dinosaur Hearesies *.
How would this effect man? Well, if the plant or animal with a potential cure for a disease was no longer living, then mankind is SOL. Far fetched? Perhaps, but you never know what you never know.
Or perhaps, we whipe out a bird that helps contol the insect population and it leads to an insect related crop failure. If that happened in the grain belt of the US then say hello to mass starvation. Far Fetched? Not nearly as so as my other example.
Well, one could take the position that the panda’s time has come and is about to go. I have no clue whether or not humans have contributed to the panda’s demise, as we have so many other species, but I think it really doesn’t matter.
We so often hold ourselves separate from evolution, trying to meddle and balance things out. save a species here, wipe out one there. But we’re not really separate. We ourselves are part of the process. So, I say save them. The fact that they are cute and pleasing to the dominant species on the planet is an evolutionary advantage. The fact that we want them here is part of the evolutionary process, so I see nothing wrong with doing whatever it takes to save them. We’re not outsiders fiddling with the process, we’re part of it.
We can’t step aside and say “let natural evolution take its course” because those cute pandas who can’t fuck to save their lives do have one last card up their evolutionary sleeves… most of us want them to stick around. Send them all the viagra they need, i say.
Since we humans have been manipulating, practically contolling the world over the past millenia, it would be wrong to see anything as just being ‘natural’ or just being ‘unnatural’. Where one stops and the other starts is impossible to say. If we can save a few species while millions of others are being destroyed, why shouldn’t we?
You can look at it 2 ways…(1) animals have a right to live and humans have been messing that up, so we should make amends whenever we can or (2) humans need a healthy ecosystem for our own survival so it is to our benefit to prevent the extinction of other species.
For point 2, we don’t know which species are “important” to us, but since there are interwoven relationships we do not fully understand, it’s more logical to preserve what we can.
Another point for aesthetics…would you rather have a world with pandas, etc. or one with only rats, cockroaches, & pigeons? (species that can live in our cities)
I have to second something Phobos said. I believe we should perserve species that are evolutionary dead ends simply to have them around. We have ornamental plants that do nothing but look pretty for us. We have dogs that can only be born through c-section (which I do think is pretty cruel). Why not keep the Panda’s around for our children. I would love to be able to see live DoDo’s. For that reason we should fight extinction.
First off, there is no such thing as an evolutionary dead end, or a species destined for extinction, or a species that “mother nature selected” for extinction. Extinction just happens, it is not the result of some plan, it does not make the world a better place now that we’ve got rid of some fucked up species.
Why do pandas have so many problems? Well, they are carnivores attempting to live on a vegetarian diet of bamboo. Bamboo is very low in nutrients, and therefore the pandas have to spend hours and hours eating bamboo shoots.
There are hundreds of kinds of bamboo, all flowering at different times, so pandas used to roam around looking for the best stands of bamboo where they could find the most nutritious browsing. But China is the most densely populated country on earth, the amount of wild bamboo forest has decreased alarmingly over the past several hundred years.
Why do pandas and other exotic species seem to have so much trouble reproducing? Well, the answer is that they don’t need and don’t want a high reproductive rate because they have limited resources and few predators. Your typical panda female only produces a few babies in her lifetime because there is only room for a few new pandas. They don’t have to reproduce like rabbits because while rabbits are eaten by every carnovore there is, nobody eats pandas except possible leopards and tigers, and I bet even they would steer clear of a pissed off panda.
So pandas used to live all across China, reproducing slowly but doing fine. Until all the bamboo forests were turned into farms and villages. Now the pandas are restricted to very small reserves where they can’t get the variety of bamboo species they need. So they are in big trouble…but it is NOT part of nature’s plan for pandas to go extinct.
I totally agree, in principle. In practical terms, the question is quite a bit more difficult. The salient point here is that humans are a part of the ecological “web” as much as any other species on the planet. Theoretically, this is true. However, humans have an ability that no other species have (or at least we have it to an extent that no other species has: ) the ability to manipulate our environment. We can do this on a truly staggering and evolutionarily unprecedented scale. This has the practical effect of distancing our species from the natural processes to which all other species are subject. For example, the act of cooking food frees our species (to a large extent, and yes, I know there are exceptions) from the perfectly natural phenomenon of food-borne parasite infestation. There are many more examples, but I won’t belabor it. The upshot is that natural selection has given humans traits which separate us from the rest of nature to some extent, so it’s only “natural” that humans are a bit arrogant.
Now, that having been said, humans don’t understand nearly enough about the ecological processes on this planet to go screwing around with it willy nilly. I think they sort of had this idea in mind when they coined the term “overweening arrogance.” Thus, the OP. If it can be shown that the pandas are going extinct because of human influence, then I believe we should take whatever measures we must to ensure the panda’s survival. I believe this, if for no other reason, because we really have no idea what consequences could be forthcoming from its extinction. Before I get jumped for being an automaton, I also believe on a personal level that they simply have a right to exist, and to either make it or die off naturally.
Sue Duhnym: There is no such thing as an evolutionary aberration or mistake. And ‘species’ is both singular and plural
Lemur866: All species are ‘destined’ for extinction. The average lifespan of most mammalian species is typically around one million years. Yes, that’s a very long time from our point of view. Geologically, it’s an instant. The question is, then, whether the Giant Panda’s time is up.
Ogre: You said, “However, humans have an ability that no other species have (or at least we have it to an extent that no other species has: ) the ability to manipulate our environment.” I’m glad you clarified that statement All species manipulate their environment to some degree (humans are, of course, better at doing this than others); they are not merely plastic lumps of genetic material acted upon by the whims of the environment.
As for the OP: Should we make the attempt to save the Panda? Yes. Is it futile? Perhaps. If the species’ time is up, then its time is up. However, as Lemur866 pointed out, much of the Panda’s current situation is a result of human influence; we’ve destroyed their habitats, so obviously it’s going to be more difficult for them to get by. I feel we have an obligation to at least attempt to correct this.
However, I’m not so sure that captive breeding programs are the way to go. Captivity induces stress in most animals, which is most likely a primary cause of the lack of reproduction in captive pandas. That, and we may well be trying to help nature along, but who says these critters want to mate anyway (at least, at that time)? We are also removing choice from the animals’ mating patterns, which may well also have an effect (I don’t know how picky Pandas are, so I cannot really be certain about this).
I am not a scholar, and have nothing learned to contribute to this thread. All I can describe is the way I feel about life on this planet, a feeling which is as close to religion as I can get.
If a species disappears and is gone forever, it feels like it tears some of my heart out. I know that, practically speaking, the nonexistence of pandas or passenger pigeons or dodos does not affect my everyday life. It’s just that this planet contains the ONLY life we know about, and I can’t be casual about the disappearance of an entire species. I cry every time I see that scratchy old bit of black and white film of that last remaining marsupial predator (I believe called the Tasmanian wolf?). That glorious, fascinating species is gone. Gone forever. It is a good point that some species may be reaching their natural evolutionary dead end, but I can’t accept it, no matter how well argued. It won’t make us feel any better when we humans, two hundred years from now, cry as we watch films of long-gone pandas or tigers.
Just a post of pure feeling, no philosophical position to debate.
Any species we have helped to the brink of extincion (Panda) should be helped to not go over that brink. Any species that is going extinc by itself, shoul be allowed to do so, eg the California Condor.
So, if it is our fault, we should attempt to rectify the problem.
Why? If the actions of humans cause a species to become extinct, have we done something “wrong”?
I see the situation simply as actions have consequences. If we wipe out a species, that action may eventually lead to loss of life within our own species (see Jimpy’s examples). Or perhaps the overall, longterm consequences to humanity will be minor, or even beneficial. It’s hard to look into the future and predict that.
Some people may be saddened by the loss of species. That is a trival consequence in the long run.
But if you set aside the consequences to humans survival, why are we “obligated” (Mauve Dog: “I feel we have an obligation to at least attempt to correct this.”) to save them?
Well, yes. At least if we are going to get all sanctimonious about “the right to life” and all that. If my actions result in your death, have I done anything “wrong”?
But, beyond that, humans cause extinction not because ‘we goofed’, but because of greed and ignorance. All too often, species have been hunted to extinction, not for food, but so that some testosterone-overdosed imbecile decided “that critter’s head would look good on my wall!” And, if we don’t hunt them to extinction, we kill them off by destroying their habitats so that we can build hotels and condos.
But, even beyond that, organisms do not exist in isolation; each organism affects others in some way. By killing off one species, we are affecting more than just the species we are killing off! By destroying the bamboo ‘forests’, we are killing off the bears that feed upon them. And who knows what other repurcussions there may be, as a result?
All for the sake of progress. I’m sorry, but I feel that this is wrong.
It’s called ‘righting a wrong.’ Even if the species in question has no real, direct impact on our lives (e.g., the Giant Panda), I still feel we have a moral obligation to protect them. We are destroying their habitats. I feel it is the height of human conceit to believe that we alone are entitled to life on this planet and all other organisms are just in our way, or are merely playthings for us to do with as we will.
It is indeed sad that we are killing off entire species. And it is not trivial. It is akin to genocide.
Just a quick correction. The condor was very much helped to extinction by us. DDT usage weakend their eggs, allowing most chicks to never hatch. I’d be interested, in fact, to know of how many species are going extinct without our help.
zev: I have not too much problem with us keeping a single vial of smallpox alive. But we also caused the rise of smallpox. However, I am willing to see the eradication of a very few dangerous species.
OldS: umm, the California condor is the almost the last remnant of the Pleistocene fauna. It’s “niche”, of eating dead mastodons, etc., is gone. Thus, having no niche, it is doomed.
If it can be shown that the pandas are going extinct because of human influence, then I believe we should take whatever measures we must to ensure the panda’s survival. I believe this, if for no other reason, because we really have no idea what consequences could be forthcoming from its extinction. Before I get jumped for being an automaton, I also believe on a personal level that they simply have a right to exist, and to either make it or die off naturally.
All species manipulate their environment to some degree (humans are, of course, better at doing this than others); they are not merely plastic lumps of genetic material acted upon by the whims of the environment.