Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, September 28, 2009

Let the Panda Die With Dignity

Posted by on Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Chris Packham says we should just let the adorablest animal on earth, the panda, fucking die already.

The zoologist...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.

Who wants to be on the panda death panels? It'll be sooooo cute!

 

Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
Yeah, let's do in the sloths while we're at it.

Chris Packham, WORST PERSON EVER.
Posted by Baconcat on September 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Fnarf 2
He has a point. Pandas suck millions of dollars from other preservation efforts. Northern hairy-nosed wombats are down to about 100 individuals, but nobody gives a crap about them.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 28, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Jason Josephes 3
The whole universe is going supernova in 6 million years. What's the point of saving anything?
Posted by Jason Josephes http://www.myspace.com/bluemoonseattle on September 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 4
"Here is a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species,"

Same thing could be said for humanity.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on September 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM
5
Yeah, dude's got a point. There are lots of endangered species, some of which would be far easier to save and have more of an environmental impact were they to be lost. Why do we instead spend so much energy on a species that, due to their pickiness regarding breeding, is so freaking _impossible_ to save? Because they're cute?
Posted by I like them too, but come on. on September 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM
kitschnsync 6
Who gets first dibs on dead pandas? I want some panda stirfry.
Posted by kitschnsync on September 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 7
Makes sense to me.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on September 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM
8
For the big animals, my vote goes to polar bears. Then for the littler ones, any brand of wombat.
Posted by LuisitaPhD on September 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Fnarf 9
Polar bears aren't savable, because global warming is destroying their habitat. The habitat's going whether we "do something about it" or not. Pandas are probably in a similar situation; their difficulty isn't really because of their breeding but because their habitat is gone -- and getting China to give a shit about habitat for ANYTHING is even less likely than doing anything about global warming.

For wombats, the answer might be as simple as telling farmers to stop planting invasive buffle grass from South Africa, which is destroying not just the wombat's food range but dozens or hundreds of other species. Unfortunately in Australia, especially in Queensland, farmers and miners hold sway over every other concern. They're deliberately destroying their eucalypt forests for pine trees for WOOD PULP, which is fucking insane.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Urgutha Forka 10
We must work harder to save the screamapiller!!!

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Screamapi…

Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM
rara avis 11
@ 3 the sun will supernova in about 6 (well, 5) billion years, not million. big difference.

this is the megafauna factor problem. cute big mammals get the lion's share of conservation dollars, while everything else, especially insects and plants, can go to hell. if the megafauna in question is a keystone animal (represents the health of ecosystem) then a lot of other organisms benefit from their conservation.

pandas are highly specialized, therefore highly vulnerable. how important is their bamboo habitat to other organisms? what is their cultural value? is the idea of pandas and their survival "too big to fail" at this point?

Posted by rara avis on September 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM
T 12
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I'd never see. I wanted to breathe smoke."

I can't believe that movie came out 10 years ago.
Posted by T on September 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM
rob! 13
"Charismatic megavertebrates" are often tarred as stealing attention from less-appealing species, but in fact they do much to raise public awareness and encourage private contributions and government funding that indirectly benefit many other species and large areas of habitat. In addition, the sums of money that are directly spent on the "superstars" develop technology that has enormous spin-offs in the same way as the space program.

Pandas' captive-breeding problems have been largely solved through applied behavior and assisted reproduction. Their remaining wild habitat is physically protected by its extremely rugged topography, but is vulnerable to air and water pollution, and the effects of climate change on the bamboo food source. I agree that short-term preservation of any species is largely pointless if sufficient natural habitat cannot be protected or recreated.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on September 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Irena 14
I hope people read the actual article before making a decision on this, particularly the counterpoint that "in protecting those mountain areas where pandas live, we are also retaining vital habitat and resources for thousands of other species (many also endangered) and helping the human communities that depend on this landscape" .

I'm not taking one side or the other, just saying this should not be an easy decision to make, for anyone.

Also, I just have to point out that his addition of the words "with dignity" is purely a persuasive mechanism meant to soften his statement, because "Let the pandas die out" sounds too harsh. There is no dignity in habitat destruction and eventual extinction.
Posted by Irena on September 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Dexter 15
Pandas are the ascetics of the animal kingdom. I think if they could speak, they would encourage us to let evolution take its course.
Posted by Dexter on September 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Will in Seattle 16
Every panda kept in a zoo means millions of dollars shipped to China that could otherwise be invested in reducing global warming ... which would help more pandas survive and breed instead of all these emotional appeals ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM
meowmeowkitty 17
@6 Stirfry? I want a coat!
Posted by meowmeowkitty on September 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM
kristinbell 18
GAH!!! SAVE THE PANDAS!!! WE CAN HAS PANDAS!!!
Posted by kristinbell http://kristinbell.org on September 28, 2009 at 2:20 PM
rob! 19
@16, false dichotomy. If all pandas were summarily evicted from zoos, there would likely not be one thin dime of additional investment in emissions reduction, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, etc., etc., etc. It's not the same pool of money.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on September 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM
mcFly 20
for the record: pandas are not lovable huggable bears, but vicious and mean. there are 2.5 million hits on the googles for "panda attacks"
Posted by mcFly on September 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Will in Seattle 21
@19 - wrong, if we required each panda sent back be replaced with an equal investment, the net impact would mean we increase pandas.

Then again, if we let China do it, they'll keep building wind farms too far from population centers in windless areas, like they're doing today (source: NYT, WaPo) and biomass plants that shut down once the government subsidy ends (source: various scientific papers we don't let you noobs read if you can't shlep to the university library)
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Y.F. Redux 22
Well, if we preserve the habitat of "Charismatic Megafauna/megavertabrates", we also preserve all the other unattractive species who live in those habitats with them so you'll pardon me if I keep supporting those "cute" wild animals.
Posted by Y.F. Redux on September 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM
rob! 23
@21, the Chinese hold the cards. Current agreements with zoos require that they send a portion of the extra $$$$ obtained from increased ticket sales, memberships, gift shop sales, etc. to China, ostensibly for support of habitat preservation and for the captive breeding center at Wolong. Also, offspring born overseas must eventually be returned to China for release into the preserve or captive breeding there. Good luck forcing the Chinese to do anything they don't want to do.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on September 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Andy_Squirrel 24
default darwin, back to business as usual
Posted by Andy_Squirrel on September 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM
drewl 25
@3 & 11 No supernova for us. The sun just isn't massive enough. We'll get toasted, tho... Most likely scenario is red giant (possibly out as far as the orbit of Mars), blowing off outer layers of matter, then condensing to a white dwarf, sometime in the next 8-10 billion years.
Posted by drewl on September 29, 2009 at 2:20 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy