Letting Pandas go extinct...

[Boerseun]

BBC presenter and naturalist Chris Packham raised a point about panda bears (sorry, I have no links - it was in my daily paper; but whether he said it or anybody else is besides the point).

 

He reckons that we should let pandas go gracefully extinct.

 

We are spending vast amounts on protecting a species in an "evolutionary cul-de-sac", and the question is open on whether they would have died out in any case, with or without our ecological meddling. If so, are we doing the right thing?

 

Another very valid point that he raised is that there are many endangered species which can be maintained (or even increased), but they aren't getting the necessary funding, because its all going to the pandas.

 

How much does the "cute" factor have to do with this? And is it right to spend lots of money on a "cute" species but not batting an eye when a not-so-cute species is in dire straits? Or are pandas merely the PR department without whom lots of other species will get no funding at all?

 

And, if a species were to die in any case, how can we convert and maintain large tracts of land artificially to emulate their habitat without screwing it up for other critters?

 

I don't know. He raises very good points, but I don't feel we should just "let the panda go".

 

But then again, species have indeed been going extinct since long before homo sapiens came to the fore.

 

Thoughts?

[jab2]

Interesting question. I have just started reading Bill Bryson's A short history of nearly everything http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253691024&sr=1-1in which he noted that 99.99% of species that have existed since the start of live on earth does not exist anymore and that the average lifespan for a specie is about 4 million years.

 

We as humans feel responsible, and with some species we indeed are responsible, for the decline in certain specie numbers, but how can we determine which are on their way out by just being unsuitable for their current environment and which humans are pushing out, be it by exploitation or habitat destruction?

 

Another question is that species are forever being "pushed out" by more successful species. Is what we as humans now do to some species not what has happened for millions of years already? What makes us different that we have a conscious about displacing other organisms?

[freeztar]

Another very valid point that he raised is that there are many endangered species which can be maintained (or even increased), but they aren't getting the necessary funding, because its all going to the pandas.

 

How much does the "cute" factor have to do with this? And is it right to spend lots of money on a "cute" species but not batting an eye when a not-so-cute species is in dire straits? Or are pandas merely the PR department without whom lots of other species will get no funding at all?

 

It's known as charismatic megafauna and it's a double edged sword. In one respect, it helps raise money for important conservation efforts for lots of other species, but at the same time it does nothing to bring awareness to all the little guys that need protecting too.

 

Imho, the good outweighs the bad, though it would be nice to have the cake and eat it too.

 

We as humans feel responsible, and with some species we indeed are responsible, for the decline in certain specie numbers, but how can we determine which are on their way out by just being unsuitable for their current environment and which humans are pushing out, be it by exploitation or habitat destruction?

 

We determine which are influenced by man and which are not by observing the crossing points in our habitats and ecology. For some species (like the northern spotted owl), the human effect is quite obvious. For others (like the great panda) there may be a fine line.

 

If for only purely selfish reasons, we should preserve species as much as possible. We still have *a lot* to learn about the natural world and losing any piece of it that was here before us is a great loss for humanity. IOW, biodiversity might just save our skins one day.

 

Of course, there's always the Anthropogenic alee effect. I wish I had access to the full article cause it looks like a good read. Nonetheless, much can be gathered from the abstract.

Another question is that species are forever being "pushed out" by more successful species. Is what we as humans now do to some species not what has happened for millions of years already? What makes us different that we have a conscious about displacing other organisms?

 

What makes us different, imho, is that we have created an ecological paradigm shift of proportions probably never seen before in the animal kingdom. It's silly to feel guilty about every single organism going extinct. As you mention, it has been going on since the beginnings of life (competition and all that). What makes it different now is that we are able to completely obliterate life on large swaths of land, overnight. The current extinction rate is unprecedented.

 

Normally, in ecology, if a species outcompetes another species with the same habitat, feeding habits, etc., one species will continue and the other will become extinct. This effect is "niche-based" and does not destroy the whole web. Humans have the ability to not only tear down the web completely, but also pour acid on it until it fades into the tainted earth below it.

 

In summary, it would be great if we could save giant pandas, but we shouldn't force it too much. Heck, they might make good martyrs. ;)

 

Here's an interesting study done in China regarding anthropogenic aspects of panda population decline.

 

http://www.csis.msu.edu/Publications/Wolong_Human_Impacts.pdf

[Moontanman]

The whole idea of preventing the extinction of animals who's gen pool has become as low as pandas reminds me of people who want to build houses on the beach. They build their house right on to the ocean and bask in the wonderful feeling of living near the ocean. Then when the sand begins to be washed away they cry out and demand the government fix the problem! The problem is not the beach being swept away it's the house built on unstable ground. We are short lived beings who cannot naturally see how non-permanent the world around us really is. We tend to think the world is as it is now and that is always will be (this mind set is a big part of religious fundamentalism) We as humans tend to think of things like the grand canyon being built by a giant flood in a short period of time instead of a small flow over eons. similarly we cannot see or understand the ebb and flow of species, we talk of living fossils like they are the exact same animal we see in the fossil record and we expect animals to not go extinct much like we expect the beach to be stable. In the long run we are as helpless to stop the extinction of animals as we are to stop beach erosion. We can slow it down some times an replace sand when it erodes but we are more likely to speed up beach erosion with our actions just as we are more likely to speed up extinction than we are to stop it. and much like beach nourishment I think we should do as much as reasonably possible to stop extinctions and we just might prevent some extinctions in the short term but not in the long term.

[Qfwfq]

I vote we spend all the funding to protect mosquitoes! Ban those poisons and those electric contraptions folks are using for the ruthless massacre! ;)

 

...the question is open on whether they would have died out in any case, with or without our ecological meddling. If so, are we doing the right thing?

 

Another very valid point that he raised is that there are many endangered species which can be maintained (or even increased), but they aren't getting the necessary funding, because its all going to the pandas.

I think it's very difficult to determine how much is due to our eco-impact.

 

I also think it's not such a right vs. wrong thing. People have the right to choose which charity to give their extra pennies to, or not to give to charity at all. Which is the right choice? Well, perhaps the panda isn't the best choice biologically, but there's no doubt it's a cute critter and besides, it's always been the symbol of the WWF so they can't very well pull the plug on it... The main trouble is how difficult it is to breed it in captivity, else it would be no more a conundrum than whether it's right to keep other domesticated animals up for purely emotional motivations.

 

Aside from the panda, the human race has definitely and needlessly been the cause of many extinctions, out of pure human stupidity and carelessness; there's a great difference between the way in which species have always eliminated others by competition for resources and the way we've eliminated so many of them. This has caused us to go somewhat to the opposite extreme and that's just how our infinitely stupid society works.

[Theory5]

But panda's are so cute! I thought one of the reasons they are going extinct was because of us. Didnt we destroy a bunch of their habitats in the mountains? I think that panda's will not be able to reproduce enough to save their species because of, as previously mentioned, their gene pool is to low. Now if some scientists wanted to clone some panda's change their dna a bit, and implant them in a surrogate to save their species, I'm all for that. But I dont think we can save them. Somebody should take DNA samples and send them around the world to different storage facilities, and so someday they can be reborn when the tech is good enough.

[lemit]

How about preserving bamboo forests for the sake of having natural bamboo forests? If we save those bamboo forests, won't we be able to save the pandas that live in them?

 

The World Wildlife Fund states, "There are now over 50 nature reserves in the panda habitat compared to 13 just two decades ago, protecting more than 10,400km2 and over half of remaining giant panda habitat. This includes over 500,000ha of new and expanded nature reserves in the Minshan Mountains and 8 new nature reserves and 5 green corridors have been created in the Qinling Mountains." (WWF - 7 reasons to celebrate)

 

Since a breeding pair needs 30 sq. km, according to the WWF, 10,400 sq. km would seem to be enough natural habitat to keep the species going, or at least a very reasonable attempt at it. If the pandas can't keep up their part of the bargain, we might need to let go. Even if the pandas don't survive, those bamboo forests will give us a fairly sizeable reminder of what the earth was like before we started screwing it up (assuming the forests can survive).

 

--lemit

[Qfwfq]

Now if some scientists wanted to clone some panda's change their dna a bit, and implant them in a surrogate to save their species, I'm all for that.

I don't think this would surpass the lack of variability.

 

While it was rare, through natural history, for widespread and rapid environmental changes to wipe out entire species, we've been doing mighty fine in this endeavour. Cases such as the panda, with little genetic diversity, no continuity with other forms and adapted to a restricted habitat, simply run higher chances of extinction but this doesn't cause it of necessity. From Lemit's post it appears we have quite a share in the cause.

[freeztar]

as previously mentioned, their gene pool is to low.

 

Cases such as the panda, with little genetic diversity

 

I'm curious where these claims are coming from. The best paper I know of that studies this suggests that the problem is not so much the gene pool (which they rate as moderate-and above other flourishing mammals), but gene flow. (of course, restricted due to human encroachment)

 

Source: http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/congen%20pdfs/MS427_Lu_ConservBiol.pdf

[Qfwfq]

I'm curious where these claims are coming from.

From this thread! ;)

 

I was just kinda reasoning on what I read here, so don't cite me as a reliable source...;)

:phones: