Let the panda die out 'with dignity', says BBC expert Chris Packham

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: TimesOnline

The BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has questioned the millions spent trying to save the giant panda from extinction and suggested that the bamboo-eating bear should be allowed to die out "with a degree of dignity".

The zoologist, who has replaced Bill Oddie as a presenter on BBC's Springwatch, risked criticism from wildlife conservationists in an interview with the Radio Times in which he describes the giant panda as a "T-shirt animal" on which too much conservation money is wasted.

"Here is a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species," he said.

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

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6844303.ece

---

I wanted to post the same story from the NY Times but I can't find it now. He also said the tiger will be extinct in 15 years. I don't know if the purpose of his comments were a slap in the back of the head wakeup call, or if he really believes they should be allowed to die, but either way, it is very depressing.

When will we value nature more than money??

[vadawg]

1. there does come a time when we have to call an end to it

creatures do die out, its part of nature and we can only fight against nature for so long.

[NeoConsSuck]

2. I don't agree..

From the article:

Pandas face extinction because of poaching and human pressures on their habitat.


If the above is a valid reason for allowing a species to die off, then let's get rid of the lowland gorilla also.

[vadawg]

4. nothing to do with getting rid, its just that we need to realise that creatures including ourselves

go extinct, it is part of nature, same as we are..

[NeoConsSuck]

5. And again:

Poaching = $$$

And sadly, the pursuit of money to many is a valid reason to wipe a species off the planet.

[vadawg]

6. yup whether its for $$ or just by accident stuff goes extinct

probuably my grandkids will look at pictures of pandas the way we look at dodos, it would be nice to be able to save every species but its in the nature of the planet for stuff to die and new stuff to come along..

[FBaggins]

7. I think that NCS's point

is that there's a difference between a species that is dying off and would have on its own... and one that people drove to the brink of extinction and THEN let die off on it's own.

I don't remember enough of the facts to really judge which it is. Bamboo forests are dying out AND being cut back by human expansion. Panda's do have some evolutionary weaknesses that make survival difficult. They take a long time to mature... are only fertile for a few days a year... and their young are uncommonly frail. BUT would that be a survival problem if they had a large population that could withstand shocks?

I suspect that this is a cost/benefit decision on someone's part... but the solution is in what I posted first.

They're cute. Raising private funds to support them is much easier than for some rare frog, tern, or mushroom.

[gatorboy]

64. "Bamboo forests are dying..."

Really? I'd like to see some evidence for this. It's THE fastest growing plant on the planet so I find it hard to believe that bamboo is permanently dying off naturally...

[Cass]

19. But poaching and other human pressures are not a part of nature.

From the OP article - Pandas face extinction because of poaching and human pressures on their habitat. They have adapted to the area in which they live and if left alone, they function perfectly well.


It is human action that is causing the problem for the panda, it is not a natural process.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Poaching is a part of nature

Before we had people who thought that they had the right to determine when and what others may eat, it was simply called "hunting".

When you live in the comfort of a civilization where you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and you have enough talents to sell to others so you have an idea where your next buck is coming from, then you have the luxury of being able to attempt to preserve every sub-species on the planet.

[Cass]

26. So it is your belief that we should allow extinction if poachers make money from it?

Following that logic then we should similarly allow tigers, elephants, whales and gorillas to be poached to extinction because people make a living off poaching them, too.

This is similar to the view that Japanese economists used to justify the continual wiping out of whale stocks by the whaling industry years ago. It was their belief that if they could make a greater profit from wiping out a species than by employing sustainable harvest methods they would opt for wiping it out for the greater profit and move on to the next species.

Poaching is not part of nature - it is an illegal activity that is done to circumvent conservation regulations.

Btw, pandas are not poached for their meat, they are poached for their fur.

[customerserviceguy]

69. People who "poach" are those who are subsistence dwellers

who have no other way to make a living. It's damned easy for you to sit there from your comfortable living, telling other people what to do.

Let them make a living from some other thing, and they'll leave your precious endangered species alone.

[fascisthunter]

47. not surprised to see you consider man's destruction as part of nature itself

people like you use it as an excuse to walk away from our responsibilities, because you just don't care.

[varelse]

59. Well done

:thumbsup:

[customerserviceguy]

70. Mankind will do whatever it needs to do

to survive. Maybe the responsibility you speak of is to figure out a way that people who live in the immediate vicinity of the panda (and any other species you feel you have the luxury of preserving) is to provide those people with another way of making a living.

[Withywindle]

75. If we still lived in a subsistence society, there would be many, many fewer humans.

We too are animals. But we're smart and adaptable ones who have created the conditions for our own HIGHLY artificial population expansion.

"When you live in the comfort of a civilization where you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and you have enough talents to sell to others so you have an idea where your next buck is coming from,"

That's the condition most of our species aspires to. And rightly so - every species is geared towards enhancing its own survival. But we are the only ones with the self-awareness to realize that maybe, just maybe, our own existence isn't the be-all end-all of life on earth. When I was little, the Peregrine Falcon was almost gone. My father used to talk to me about extinction, and we had a giant Audubon print of one in our living room. The day he could point out a nest to me in downtown Baltimore was one of the greatest days of both our lives (I was 5 at the time; it's still true). Now they're off the list and healthy.

There comes a point where comfortable people must realize, OK, I'm comfortable, it's worth giving up some things I thought I needed but really don't, so that other species can live. For us in the US, in that particular case, it was DDT. OK, so we have more mosquitos than we would otherwise. But we also have more falcons and eagles.

The brutal truth is, homo sapiens sapiens is NOT an endangered species. "By any means necessary" to live in the short term is NOT justified for any individual example. I wouldn't take a bullet for you, but I would take one for a California condor.

[LynneSin]

30. But it's not nature that is making the Panda extinct, it's man.

These aren't dinosaurs that are living thru their normal lifecycle. These are animals that have seen their viable land dimish in size and their numbers decrease all due to man's intervention. The dinosaurs died out thru no fault of mans (since we did not exist at the same time) but the Pandas are clearly our fault that they are dying out.

I think, as the ones who created this mess, should do our part to help revive their numbers. And yes, the Pandas make for a cute Tee-Shirt - but they are the symbol of an organization that works to save all animals whose existance has been threatened due to mans intervention. World Widelife Federation is a wonderful organization.

This guy needs to STFU

[Gman2]

82. Not sayin' it would be right, but to use them as a martyr, would be mucho powerful, and educational.

[fascisthunter]

46. it's not because of "nature" but because of "man"

therefore, it's man's responsibility.

[pecwae]

13. Precisely. This seems,

as so many other fauna and flora extinctions, to have nothing to do with the cycle of nature, but with the whim of mankind. We can utterly destroy anything in our path.

[FBaggins]

3. Yeah... but..

...they're cute.

It makes sense, but isn't there some species of mold somewhere that we can save a buck on?

And think of all the logos that would have to be changed. There's millions right there.

[tabasco]

41. Not surprising ignorance.

You haven't the first clue how an ecosystem or biosphere operates.

As we destroy the environment for animals, we are destroying it for ourselves, as well.

Idiots like your pill-popping hero Limbaugh should go extinct, not pandas.

[LanternWaste]

52. According to whom?

According to whom do we have to "call an end to it?" Certainly cannot be nature-- as nature does that in its own time rather than in our time. What relevant and objective measure is this answer based on?

I see this less as fighting against nature and more simply fighting against greed of man. Yet I imagine we all justify things things to better validate our own perspectives...

[Gman2]

80. Gonna feel the same way about the great apes?

[Uben]

8. Depends on the definition of "dignity"

Dick Cheney has been wanting to "bag" one for years. But he needs one hobbled and chained to a tree so he'll be able to shoot it in the face!

[24601]

9. His position is understandable. Packham is just applying the same

rationing logic he experiences under the UK National Health Service to conservation. Resources are finite and the cut line has to be drawn somewhere. And anyway, Panda even doesn't taste all that good, kind of a cross between baby seal and Peregrine Falcon. But with the right sauce, it almost tastes like whale.

[blm]

38. You just HAD to attack the idea of National Healthcare, didn't ya?

Oh well...there's a TOOL for every job, eh?

[tomm2thumbs]

10. if the Chinese could make money off 'em, they'd be pumping them out by the thousands /nt

[HereSince1628]

11. Its part of the longstanding debate about charismatic megafauna

within the conservation movement.

Some animals just don't have public appeal, remember the "snail darter?" Many more non-charismatic animal species are actually at risk of extinction than charismatic species. There maybe shouldn't be equality in the value of species, and certainly having species that live at higher trophic level is some indication of the quality of environment in the community, but popular interest often falls only on charismatic species.

Consider hawks, they've been endowed by humans as symbols of "nobel personality." Mice, voles, and small brown birds not nearly so much (although they are more charismatic than insects and worms). Yet, to protect hawks, you must protect hawk habitat so you protect that species nutrient and energy base...which often turns out to be the mice, voles, and small brown birds that no one cares about.

Ever tried to save an endangered species of mouse or vole? Sarah Palin, icon of populist sentiment of typical Americans, mocked an effort to do that during her VP campaign.

[WriteDown]

27. Bingo..

Try saving a species of snake or lizard.

[XemaSab]

49. Amen

n/t

[elocs]

12. This story was posted here yesterday morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6605113

[Monk06]

14. Jeez not a lot of love on this thread. And why is anyone listening to a BBC

wildlife 'expert' who's basically advocating
social darwinism for Pandas.

It is human beings who have reduced the natural
habitat for the Giant Panda to the point that
they have to be reared in zoos to save them.

So now that we have destroyed their ecological
niche that sustained them for millennia they should
be allowed to die off with dignity.

What a prick this Peckham is.

[tocqueville]

15. let Chris Packham die with dignity.... nt

[harmonicon]

16. what has he done to deserve dignity? (nt)

[mbperrin]

22. Better thought yet! Wonder if anyone would mistake parts of a Brit

naysayer for say, a rhino horn? After all, he is just a part of nature.

That part of nature that destroys everything in its path for money, and hopefully, will meet exactly the same end, but not for money, for no particular reason, just sheer neglect.

[mbperrin]

21. Finally, a thought I agree with!

nt

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I'd like to see overpaid BBC 'experts' be allowed to fade away

but dignity is outside of their realm of possibilities.

[stray cat]

18. Nature is letting species die out - it happened before people were part of the equation

extinction is natural. Let nature be nature perhaps? Intervention could be called the arrogance of humans thinking they can control nature

[Cass]

20. It is human action that is causing the panda to die out, not nature.

How about the arrogance of humans controlling nature by causing the extinction of a species?

From the OP article - Pandas face extinction because of poaching and human pressures on their habitat. They have adapted to the area in which they live and if left alone, they function perfectly well.

[Xithras]

54. The problem is that those pressures are permanent.

People aren't going to abandon thousands of square miles of farmland and allow the bamboo forests to regrow, which is the only way that panda populations will stabilize over the long term. Once habitat is lost to human encroachment, that habitat is gone forever.

Which leaves us with a simple choice. Resign ourselves to the reality that we'll be supporting panda populations through zoos on a permanent basis, or allow them to survive or die in their remaining habitat without interference.

It's an ugly choice, but that's the choice China faces today.

[joeybee12]

57. I don't agree...as countries move towards a more urban-based economy

and as technology develops, such large swaths of farmland are not needed to produce the same amount of food.

[Xithras]

60. Are you serious?

You do realize that we're in the opening stages of a global food crisis RIGHT NOW, and that most global experts expect habitat destruction to accellerate over the next 25 years as humans attempt to increase production to provide enough food to our exploding populations? Do you realize that when peak oil hits and fertilizer availablility declines, humans will be forced to dramatically increase farmed acreage just to maintain current food production levels?

The people and economy may be becoming urbanized, but food still requires open skies and dirt for production. Megafarms are displacing smaller farms, but the actual acreage of farmed land is increasing globally, not declining. Nothing short of a massive population crash is going to reverse that.

[bhikkhu]

68. Exactly the problem

the more our species is, the more "habitat destruction" is necessary to maintain us. At this point in history, a scientist says the panda has reached an "evolutionary cul-de-sac", as we have killed too many of them and destroyed the majority of the habitat that they used to flourish in.

If we don't draw a line at the panda and say we'll do our best, because the effort is worthwhile, how many other species will we just say goodbye to, as they reach their own necessary evolutionary cul-de-sacs? All of them, perhaps, as we spread and increase without restraint or regret?

[bhikkhu]

71. ...

[mbperrin]

23. This is the reason I watch those shows where animals attack, kill, and otherwise

maim dumbasses who invade their space. Then I can just sit back and say, just nature, right?

Except that the friends of the dumbasses usually bring their high tech death culture in and murder the animal who was only protecting its own to begin.

[joeybee12]

58. By that logic, let's cut down the entire rain forest since nature will

eventually change the topological face of this planet as it has done in the past.

[Odin2005]

25. STFU, you bastard!

:grr:

[Bill McBlueState]

56. ooh, good one.

[theblasmo]

28. Polar Bears

This is a bit more nuanced, but no less wrong argument that's similar to ass-hat Beck's comments about the polar bears. He says something along the lines of, "Well if they're supposed to survive, they will. Otherwise, they'll die out if nature intended it." Well, nature might not have intended, since human beings are destroying their habitats through global warming (polar bears) and encroachment and poaching (pandas). In both cases, these species are being killed off because we've destroyed the places they live.

Now, pandas might actually be an evolutionary cul-de-sac, esp. given many of the creatures' absolute fear of their own young when born. But human beings who have gotten to the point where we can influence nature via our own living habits, and can SAVE these animals by working at it. Pandas might eventually die out. Polar bears don't have to. Their destruction is our fault.

[Yupster]

42. There have been times in the recent past

when the north pole had no ice.

The polar bears survived those times since they're still here. I wonder what's different this time.

In the same way, the megafauna died out in North America at the end of the last ice age, yet they survived the end of the five ice ages before that. Was the difference stone age man? It's interesting.

[eppur_se_muova]

74. What's different is the much greater pace of change.

Remember the "hockey stick" graph from Al Gore's presentation?

When change is too fast, natural selection cannot compensate quickly enough, particularly with larger, slower-breeding species. For microbes, a generation may be measured in hours; for larger megafauna, in years or even decades. Thus microbes adapt quickly to outside changes but megafauna are wiped out by the same changes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. this thread has verified why i find most du'ers to be freeper-like

i can understand disagreeing with this mans opinions but he isnt offering his opinion out of hatred for pandas. he is merely pointing out, that this maynot be a manmade problem and that resources should be used on other species that are more likely to thrive in the future. one may disagree with this, but i really dont get the hatred directed at him.

[closeupready]

37. I guess my anger at him is due to several things:

The BBC refers to him as a "wildlife expert" and he is using that pulpit to persuade people to ease up on conservation efforts. Now, his goal here may be to reallocate limited money more equitably, which is a valid goal, but there is nothing stopping him from promoting more generalized conservation efforts rather than suggesting that we stop trying to save endangered species. I feel that this is highly irresponsible.

[struggle4progress]

76. "My .. recent BBC programmes ... investigated mythological creatures such as the Yeti"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/south/presenter/

I'm always impressed by "wildlife experts" who are more interested in nonexistent animals than in real conservation

[nashville_brook]

31. he's entitled to his opinion -- damn glad he doesn't have any power to enforce it.

[Yupster]

43. I don't care whether they would have gone extinct or not

I want to save as many species as possible, even if it just means in a few protected reserves.

Just for greed's sake, it might be good for humans to have pandas around a few hundred years from now. Who knows where the next medicine will come from.

[liberal N proud]

32. There is nothing dignified about the extinction caused by man

[and-justice-for-all]

33. I disagree with him, sorry...

I find this to be tragic and I feel sad for the Panda and the Tiger, it is just terrible what the Human Animal does to other species and the environment.

[ThoughtCriminal]

34. Mine owner...

"Let the canaries die with dignity."

[varelse]

65. Best reply on the whole thread

that's exactly what it is.

[Recursion]

35. Lots of conservation grunts resent charismatic megafauna

Animals with fur and big eyes get a much larger percentage of the conservation pie than plants, or animals with scales or fangs or other sharp pointy things sticking out of them.

[closeupready]

36. Packham is full of unadulterated shit.

If we'd followed the same line of reasoning with regard to bald eagles or grey wolves or American buffalo, they'd either be extinct or else pretty much gone.

I'm sorry, but his defeatism pisses me off big-time. :mad:

[Javaman]

39. As as we as a spieces refuse to do what is necessary to save our planet

trying to save the various animals on the endangered list is a sisphusian quest at best.

we are killing ourselves by our own hands, how are we to save others if we can't even save ourselves.

Granted, that doesn't mean we should give up, it's just that the deck is stacked against us and it's growing bigger and bigger as we write.

[closeupready]

40. While I agree with the idea that some magnificent species are essentially gone,

such as some of the big cats or the polar bear, I don't think it's ever healthy to just give up.

[gauguin57]

44. "When will we value nature more than money?" Quote of the year.

Thank you, NeoConsSuck. That is my quote of the day. The week. The month. The year. The millennium so far. When WILL we value nature more than money? Animals and humans are BOTH part of "nature": When will we value the lives of animals AND human beings more than money?

[OneBlueSky]

45. there is very little more tragic in this life than the extinction of a species . . .

all species have a place in the web of life, and humankind can learn something from each of them . . . species extinction, particularly when it's the result of human encroachment, represents an immensely tragic tear in the web of existance that we humans must do everything in our power to prevent . . . once we start excepting extinctions as a fact of life, we're all pretty much doomed . . .

[sofa king]

48. You can't argue too much with habitat loss.

If the habitat is gone, the critter has to adapt into something with different behavior and preferences, or it dies out. In that sense, it's not looking too good for the panda.

But on the other hand, the panda is important to the Chinese, too, and becoming more so all the time. They may yet realize that the long-term preservation of that habitat will yield large but largely unquantifiable future rewards.

[Old Hob]

50. As far as I'm concerned, Chris Packham should be allowed to die out

with or without dignity. It isn't mother's nature's natural selection that threatens this species, The panda was doing fine for countless ages until we fucked with its habitat.

[KhartoumCharacter]

62. We are part of the selection process

What are we? Robotic androids created by the inhabitants of some distant galaxy to wreak havoc on the lifeforms of this planet? You goofball, we are just as much the product of natural selection on earth as everything else. In fact the panda had to kill something, had to displace an earlier form in order to take the place it has now.

If nature didn't intend for us to kill everything, nature would not have created us. You can't cry and weep about mother nature's intentions being violated with the arrival of humans. We ARE the intention.

Just like war, if it were bad, it wouldn't exist. Everything that exists is necessary and everything that is necessary is good.

[callous taoboy]

51. Like Paulie said on The Sopranos: Fuck the bears. They had their time, now

it's our turn.

[MisterP]

53. "man insists boat not seaworthy after torpedoing it" n/t

[joeybee12]

55. It did not go "of its own accord" dipshit...it's because of human development

which happens far too rapidly than most species can adapt and so they are threatened.

What about tigers?

What about the Asian elephant?

This guy is an idiot if he doesn't even realize the basic reason for the demise of this and so many other species.

[flvegan]

61. Let me see if I've got this straight, Packham you prat...

the giant panda has "of its own accord" become endangered? Because of its low birth rate? You don't think for just a moment that maybe people had SOMEthing to do with it? What with them being hunted for fur, their habitats decimated, all by...us. Yeah, you're right. Their fault.

[gmoney]

63. Can we find something else pandas will eat?

Maybe more calories and more plentiful? Strawberry milkshakes? Switchgrass? Krispy Kreme?

[cadmium]

67. Packham? He's not the boss of me: http://www.worldwildlife.org/ n/t

[gmoney]

78. well, just to help the Pandas adapt and thrive

[ddeclue]

66. Oh Noes: Panda Death Panels?

:shrug:

[troubledamerican]

72. Humans: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac.

[amborin]

73. Triage-----other species are getting extirpated constantly: article:

<http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/>

[xchrom]

77. i suggest we cut his balls off -- and call him a 'dead end'. nt

[Withywindle]

79. "Dignity" is a human concept. Pandas have no interest in a predatory hairless ape's mouth noises.

The importance of "t-shirt animals" is that they are the ones most likely to appeal to humans, who might eventually open up their brains, hearts, and wallets to the larger, vaster and more crucial issue of preserving ecosystems.

Talk to any prominent environmentalist activist or scientist. I bet most of them have a story that had something to do with an endangered animal or plant they were drawn to as a child.

And the benefit of ANY animal or plant, including the boring mosses, including the ugly bugs and snakes, is that they have a right to live on this earth just like any other creature.

[HappyCynic]

81. "Dignity"

Isn't this just a way to make ourselves feel less guilty when they go extinct? Fact is, there's no indication that pandas understand or care about what we consider dignity. To the pandas, dead is dead. Doesn't matter how they went. Letting them "die with dignity" seems more like an excuse. A way to say we technically didn't kill them off through our actions targeting them or their environment. It's just pushing our values and our concept of dignity on them. And the only ones who care about human dignity are humans. So isn't letting them "die with dignity" a concept for humanity rather than for the pandas?
Should the funds be allocated differently to save as much as we can? Maybe. Should a higher preservation value be placed on pandas for political reasons (the same way the bald eagle has higher political significance for the US than a turtle)? Possibly.
Regardless of whether or not an attempt at saving a species is the best use of our efforts, shouldn't we stop trying to make excuses and take some responsibility? Once we do that, we can focus on the task at hand - preservation. Not just of other species but our own as well. After all, we're all part of the same ecosystem.