It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Don't stop panda extinction

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by wayno

Do you really not know that they have had to show pandas film of pandas going at it to encourage them to get down to it themselves? They had no inclination otherwise. There are lots more like this...

I trust the rest of you knew about this. It's a method they've used for some years now because nothing else worked.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Now_Then
But to say that they survived X amount of time - and coincidently we are here now to debate it? It's just a point in time... I would not mind if there was a Panda paradise that co-existed with the rest of the world, but it don't seem that there is... You snooze you loose, you can't always blame people - after all we have to grow.

You absolutely can blame people, because people are to blame. The hunting of Pandas, primarily for their skins, played a big part, on top of the destruction of their habitat. As I said, they were doing just fine on their own.

Because of pollution and destruction of their natural habitat, along with segregation due to caging, reproduction of wild pandas was severely limited. In the 1990s, however, several laws (including gun control and the removal of resident humans from the reserves) helped the chances of survival for pandas. With these renewed efforts and improved conservation methods, wild pandas have started to increase in numbers in some areas, even though they still are classified as a rare species.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Do you really not know that they have had to show pandas film of pandas going at it to encourage them to get down to it themselves?

Pandas lose interest in mating while in captivity. To understand why you need to read up on how they act in the wild. Also, relatively low birth rate in the wild, as compared to other animals, ensures they have enough to eat to survive. It works if they're left alone, it just takes longer to build up the numbers.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:45 PM
This is ridiculous. We live in an age where we have the technology and resources to come up with solutions to help our endangered wildlife prosper. If what we're currently doing isn't working then it's our responsibility to find another solution. Human beings have done more to assist in the endangerment of wildlife than Mother Nature or any animal predators. If we are going to hunt animals almost into extinction, or take away their homes because of our greed in monopolizing the planet, then we absolutely are the ones responsible for fixing the problem.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:51 PM
hes got a point.
but a sick point at that.
lets take away his house and habitat and let him try and survive without food money shelter
the people of this world make me sick
i hope a global revolution occurs in my lifetime
i hope the nwo hurry up with theirs plans so when people wake the # up and realize whats going on they get pissed and do something about it

man ats is a good site but its also just a downer, the info i come across makes me angry and sick, sometimes id rather be happy and think the world has no problmes!

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by Now_Then

You're missing my point. You keep focussing just on Pandas. Yes, pandas are pretty pointless. They're big and cuddly. Big whoop.

My point is - if we give up on Pandas, then we'll give up on the next species as well. Next on the list are tigers... Tigers are the pinnacle of predatory evolution in Asia aka an apex predator. They were far from extinction until man put gunpowder in its way. How does gunpowder fit in with "evolution"?

We can go easily go down the list of endangered animals and we'll soon see that very few - if any animals deserve to be on the list. Rhinos, elephants, cheetahs, whales, gorillas... Are any of these “weak” animals that deserve to go extinct because it’s “survival of the fittest”?

Yes, any species will eventually die out. It's the circle of life. But the panda wouldn't have been there this soon if it wasn't for us. We're responsible for their demise; we may just as well take responsibility for our actions.

Since when is it human nature to just throw our arms up in the air and give up?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Gemwolf]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by Gemwolf

It's not giving up. It's a done deed. We've forced Nature to move aside for us. We might think we're solving the problem, we might think we can, with the miracle of our sooperdooper brain and our magnificent opposable thumb, just patch up whatever little messes we make of this planet. But we can't. Nature has rules and we've fuxxed it up. We can't get enough over ourselves in time to save much of anything anymore. Our squabbling is going to do us in. At the end of the day, it's all due to the fact that we just don't get it. We don't.

At present, the birds are being messed up by our city lights. We've stolen their habitat and moved them into smaller and smaller areas that cause no end of problems for them, but dammit we need our street lights because there are marauding bands of dangerous folk out there ready to harm us for our car or tv or child or just because they're bored.

Humans are the problem. There's only one fix for that, my dear friends. Nature will have her balance restored, like it or not. She doesn't care about a few extinct species. That's an ego thing and she has none of that going on. That's a human trait.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:53 PM
Let the Panda's die, let the Tigers vanish, Let the Polar Bears dwindle and all other species come to ruin.

Let this happen so that one day, when my children ask me what happened to them, I can say plainly:

"You will never see this creature except in pictures and film, because Humanity decided our own gluttony and greed took precedence over all other aspects of the world. By the time we wanted to save them, it was too late, and even then our greed lead us down the wrong path of trying to save them. That is why biodiversity on the planet is gone."

An example, if you will, so that future generations will not repeat the same mistakes and look back on ours with the hatred and derision that we rightfully deserve for our selfishness and utter apathy towards the world around us.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by LiveForever8

While their point is valid, wasting millions on raising the animals in captivity, and releasing them into the wild is not the answer, somewhere in the translation, it is being missed, that millions are being wasted, and I fail to see how that is the Panda, or the tiger's fault in any way whatsoever.

The failure is on man, and man alone, encroaching on the wild habitat of any animal to the point of extinction, we as a race should be ashamed of ourselves, but we are not, I know I am not, not for the same reason as most, because I was raised to respect wild animals, keep my distance from them, and if an encounter was to happen I was taught how to deal with it and walk away, but those useless eaters, those harmful, foul and wholly unsavory, selfish individuals who would put up a mall, or a parking garage and wipe out a species, they are to blame.

Next to blame are those people who scream for the malls and parking garages, and lay to waste an entire ecosystem and habitat for their selfish desires and wants.

I prefer the way the Native Americans and Aborigines were a part of their environment, not a hindrance to it like the white man and their selfish race.

Why is it that society fails to see it is responsible for the demise of these animals?

I abhor zoos and any facility that holds animals in captivity.

Even the ones where an animals is hurt, and rehabilitated, they offend me and my sense of honor.

Wasting millions, really, on what, for animals that had a home, and it was stolen from them.

No, I do not believe in zoos, if you want to see the wild animals, learn to live in their environment, do not expect them to live in yours for your selfish, bastardization of their lives, because once you cage a wild animal, it dies inside.

Original Quote by SKL

I fail to see how man's mismanagement of fiscal finances is somehow the blame of the wild animals these organizations claim they are trying to assist.

Since when did wild animals learn about the calculator, budgets, and profits verses losses?

The real predators are not those loose on the Serengeti, they are loose in the board rooms and their flagrant rape of your willing wallet is where their killing fields are really located.

The prey these salaciously criminal bastards hunt is the easily stroked and over-inflated ego, the extra heavy wallet, and the guile blinded ignorant fool who will give to a cause because it is good social manners, and belonging to an organization that deceives their sense of belonging to something more important than themselves when they are really only perpetuating the needless spending on that benefit that we drove towards necessity.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:38 PM
Just imagine the world that would exist if we humans did not make an effort to soften our footprint; if instead we just plowed everything up for our own use and let the existing wildlife die out.

What would survive our destructive ways?

Probably rats, cockroaches, feral cats and dogs, and various other scavenger species.
Nothing would grow without artificial fertilizers.

Sounds nice huh? Not!

Biodiversity has been the hallmark of success of life on earth. I suggest we don't mess with that concept.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by D.E.M.

Yeah, I used to cry those same tears, my friend. Please bear in mind that there are species that lived and died long before we arrived on the scene. It's what we call "evolution". Just because it was doesn't mean it will always be. It's great to realize that we are destroying our planet and that we have no right to do so, but you can't save them just to save them. It requires that their habitat be returned to them. Our noise has to stop. We need to learn to tread gently on our beloved Earth.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by LiveForever8

They've gotten down to numbers because of human intervention through deforretsation, agriculture and hunting. Like all animal populaitons we are destroying due to our virus-like existence.
Poor pandas, that dude is a nasty pasty!

Steve Irwin would be turnign in his grave. We need a new envirmental warrior that understands the animal chain.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:37 PM
I dunno if I want to get in this, .... but people blame humanity as a whole, ... like it can just change its mind and bring everything back.

Tell the plight of the panda to the poor asian family who farms the panda's former habitat in order to survive, It's easy to call people out in the big picture, but reality is much more complicated.

and although some of you might rather deliver mass abortions with your bare hands to the people who " deforest" this land, lets face it, at the end of the day its their a@@ on the line and not yours.

Habitat's are being destroyed, right now, in order to create, or package products that YOU use. No one here is innocent.

... but unfortunately this is the natural way of things 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by Gemwolf

We can go easily go down the list of endangered animals and we'll soon see that very few - if any animals deserve to be on the list. Rhinos, elephants, cheetahs, whales, gorillas... Are any of these “weak” animals that deserve to go extinct because it’s “survival of the fittest”?t

UMM GEM gotta disagree with you here bud.
Are we saying that strength is the only qualification for existence?
All life contributes to the planet, and Im not just talking food for stronger species. Poop, counts too

All life is rquired not just human, and humans are taking over in a non sustainable manner.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by zazzafrazz

I agree with you 100%.

It was a rhetorical question. I asked that question because Now_Then basically said pandas are weak and deserve to go extinct:

Would that help? - They eat bamboo, they take ages to digest it for very little energy, they have to live where there are very few predators because they are a sitting target - evolutionary speaking they painted them selves into a corner a very very long time ago.

My point was (with that quote) that some of the strongest animals are on the endangered species list... Being weak has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a species going extinct (in this case).

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by Gemwolf

I even reread your statement LOL! cause I thought hang on that cant be right?
Ill put it down to the Sydney dust storm in my eyes making me see silly things.
As for Now_Then, I am going to assume that he is being his usually cheeky self, he claims to do things like staple his cat, or panfry it to get a rise....
Naughty NT!

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:10 AM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
As for Now_Then, I am going to assume that he is being his usually cheeky self, he claims to do things like staple his cat, or panfry it to get a rise....
Naughty NT!

Actually I'm not happy with sentimentality being the driving force for conservation.... I'm more than happy to staple my cat to a panda if it gets a laugh - but I care about both the cat and the panda.

Spank you Zazzafrazle me lover

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:33 AM
NO! I love Pandas but tigers have always been my favorite! Dont let them die, I still havent played with one yet

This is horrible IMO. We talk these animals natural habitat from them and then say oh just let them die out?! Sorry let me pick my mouth up off the floor. These people are crazy and obviously dont give a crap about animals.

TIgers :up

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:05 AM
if something can b saved it should b

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Gemwolf
reply to post by zazzafrazz

My point was (with that quote) that some of the strongest animals are on the endangered species list... Being weak has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a species going extinct (in this case).

That is because by using the term "strongest" you are missing the entire point of evolution. Strength, on a species-wide basis, is a measure of the ability for a life form to adapt to changes in their environment.

Everyone on this thread that is lamenting the fate of the panda because of the changes we have brought to their habitat should take a look out their window at the species that live - nay, thrive - among the massive changes humans have made to their habitat.

For every dead-end species, like the panda, that our actions thankfully purge from the gene-pool there are other species, like squirrels, that absolutely thrive as a result of our change.

I bet if you ask the humble squirrel outside my window right now, he wouldn't want the foxes that were driven out by human hunters back in my area. So when we engage in "conservation" which species do should we seek to benefit and why do we act like we care about that only a few species exclusively?


posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Gemwolf

removing pandas is not a house of cards.... unfortuantaly no one will notice.

UNLESS.... the bamboo was an dangerous creature kept in check by the amazing and intelligent panda?!?!?!?!

Thats right! This time instead of a volcanoe or a meteor... or any one of the other many natural geological disasters that have erased the other 99.9% of life that has existed on earth, ITS HUMANS!!!!

And we should feel guilty.. but it was bound to happen and in the long run we will add pandas to the list thats 10000x longer than the one of currently surviving species.

Live and learn.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in