Reputable naturalist says we should let pandas die out
He says that the panda is 'not a strong species', and that we should 'pull the plug' on our conservation efforts.
By Bryan NelsonFri, Sep 25 2009 at 4:03 AM EST
23
Photo: popofatticus/Flickr In a controversial interview to Radio Times magazine (via MSNBC), BBC naturalist Chris Packham said that money spent conserving the giant panda could be better spent trying to conserve stronger animals.
"Here's a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species. Unfortunately it's big and cute and it's a symbol of the WWF, and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity," he implored.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
Other naturalists have responded by calling Packham's startling assertions irresponsible. "It is a daft thing for Chris to say," said Mark Wright, a WWF conservation scientist. "Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat."
Pandas are highly endangered, and their numbers are estimated at only around 1,600 worldwide. Despite Packham's implication that the species has been responsible for its own precarious demise, the leading threat to the panda is habitat loss due to agricultural encroachment and China's human overpopulation problem. If pandas die out, the blame would fall primarily on people, not the bears.
Furthermore, conservation efforts to save the panda have been far from futile. Panda numbers are up an estimated 40% since the 1970's. When human-caused pressures are subdued, panda propagation seems to be healthy and strong, despite Packham's unusual claim.
Packham's litmus test for the evolutionary strength of a species also seems to ignore the species' actual evolutionary history. Pandas are well adapted to the specialized conditions under which they evolved, and until recently have thrived for at least the last 600,000 years. Since they have no major natural predators, they have evolved to control their population through infrequent, slow and inefficient breeding cycles.
Ironically, it is precisely those sustaining traits which now make the panda population so sluggish to recover. But regardless of the animal's current prognosis, Packham evokes evolutionary misconceptions in citing it as evidence that pandas are 'weak'.
If you'd like to help the conservation of the Giant Panda, one way is by donating to the World Wildlife Fund.
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
Comments
Walt N.
04/26/2010 15:59 PM
I love animals. That is a fact. However, I can not approve wasting millions in global currency on an animal that can only be described as "nature's retard". That money could be spent on A. getting me laid, or B. saving a species that wants to be saved. Don't believe the misconception that humans are "encroaching on natural Panda territory". Panda's are killing themselves by selectively eating (and endangering I may add) a specific bamboo which only grows at a specific climate. Also they have over.... More
Sino Chimp
12/19/2009 15:27 PM
Mao Ze Dong help preserve the panda species thus far by killing out a swath of ratty humans that ate panda paws and hearts.
The wars for life are crucial. Long Live the Panda. But really, basically, Pandas take a hellva lot of bamboo to keep them fed. Why can't we we retrain the dietary needs through breeding in horse genetic dna, so they can eat regular grasses.
Anonymous
09/29/2009 13:11 PM
We can't let the panda die out, it's our responsibility to keep them around. Our invasion of their habitat is the primary reason of their decline.
As a side note I for one would miss the great giant panda. When I have the extra cash a nice panda steak is tops for a great dinner party. It would be a disgrace to foodies to let this exotic delicacy disappear.
Mmmmmm... Panndaaaaa!!!
Ted Sheckler
09/29/2009 13:13 PM
I'm the panda eater, I didn't want to be a internet troll.
metakid
09/28/2009 11:06 AM
Regardless, I think we owe it to the pandas to conserve them, and same goes for other endangered creature. Who's to say whether it's "worth it" or not. Here's a great video summing the story up, and hilarious shots of pandas fooling around: http://www.newsy.com/videos/adapt_or_die
One Minus One
09/27/2009 20:35 PM
I agree completely with Mr. Packham. It's foolish to spend so much money preserving something that doesn't seem to want to survive.
Michael H
09/26/2009 11:20 AM
People need to start realizing that humans for better or worst are part of the environment. It is stupid to think that as teh human race grows the rest of the earth should stay the same as it was before we got here. No question we should do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves and conserve the resources the earth provides for us, but in even if we do that other species are going to suffer. Simple fact.
Anonymous
09/26/2009 10:55 AM
That is what a waco do. Go through the extreme for no good reason.
Anonymous
09/26/2009 08:55 AM
What gives Packham the idea that he can decide which animals are worth are efforts and which are not? It is clearly stated above that the panda species have been surving 600,000 years. Like someone else has already said on this board, under the Packham way of thinking the weakest links should just be "cut off" Good bye to the ederly, disabled, oh, and the majority of Africa.... Our world has come to a time where the strong get stonger instead of helping the weak.
Damn those pandas.... More
Bruce
09/26/2009 05:40 AM
Pandas are cute its true however they are originally carnivores that have evolved to eat one of the nutritionally devoid plants. Due to their poor diet they need to eat loads just to keep alive. The poor diet means that they can only reproduce infrequently. When they do reproduce they take an epic amount of time of gestate. The new-borns take a very long time once they have been born to open their eyes let alone walk about. This is also due to the poor diet the parents eat making their breast.... More
Anonymous
09/25/2009 17:36 PM
Who the heck is Henry Humility? I'm so sick and tired of writers with rude netiquette. Just because you're addressing someone anonymously doesn't mean you suddenly have free reign to say hurtful nasty ****. What's up with the mean comment about Mary's grammar and GED? To be honest, I think you have some self esteem issues because you're projecting an insecure vibe. You're from America and frankly, Americans like you are the reason why American tourists have to wear Canadian stickers on.... More
Anonymous
09/25/2009 17:12 PM
Hmm, well, using Packham's line of reasoning, we can simply leave the disabled, mentally challenged, or old and dying alone to fend for themselves. After all, we could use that money to do better things than help someone who will be useless or dead soon anyway.
I don't agree with what he said, but then again, I also don't know exactly what percentage of conservation money goes to the panda. If the panda is hogging all the money, then that's not really fair to all the other animals that need.... More
Russell McC.
09/26/2009 05:13 AM
Not that I agree with him, but your comparison has weak structure and needs work to be used as an actual argument.
He was saying to let the entire species die out. Much different than helping out members of your own species, and civilization. And also, he didn't say to even kill them off. Just to stop drowning them in money. Let them take care of themselves, and if they do happen to die off, then evolution has spoken.
His line of reasoning: Why help a species when evolution would.... More
Jennifer Estes
09/25/2009 14:26 PM
Lets be honest. One aspect of evolution is the survival of the most able species. Yes, the pandas evolved in special areas, and they were adaptable for awhile; but when those special areas are gone, what then? The history of the earth is littered with the bones of species that died out because they couldn't survive when the environment changed. I would like to save them too but then I would rather see them go to history than see them become little pedestal pets that are an homage to human.... More
Anonymous
09/25/2009 14:12 PM
Whether you agree or disagree you must admire him for publicly stating his opinion when he must have known the personal attacks ir would generate
Sino Chimp
12/19/2009 15:31 PM
That's is like admiring HItler for openly say the Jews are at a cul de sac. and should die off.
Anonymous
09/25/2009 14:28 PM
What does that even mean? Should you admire a white supremacist who says "kill the jews, blacks and asians" at a event where people would be mad?? Just making a daft statement out of left field doesn't garner any respect.
Henry Humility
09/25/2009 14:12 PM
The article, along with other related reports bring up a good point. The pandas are an amazing species, but Chris Packham also makes a few points that are worth consideration. If pandas cannot thrive in their current environment, then Darwin’s theory supports their extinction. Their tools necessary for survival up to 3 million years ago, may not be useful enough today. In fact, it is no new idea that they may have already been next for the environmental cutting room. Giant pandas are slow to.... More
Bob
09/25/2009 13:25 PM
...then maybe more money will go towards blog editors. (HINT: No apostrophe.)
Grey Garvin
09/25/2009 12:55 PM
...obviously, this whole thing is heated up because pandas are cute. And school children love them. If this guy had said that we should let south american spitting cockroaches die out, i doubt there would be this dramatic reaction.
But I still don't agree with him....it could be (and this is sad) but some animals are just going to have to live only in captivity and be almost museum pieces.
Mary
09/25/2009 11:22 AM
Chris Packham has just produced a load of twaddle and got an interview in the Radio Times. His assertion that pandas have gone down an evolutionary cul de sac of their accord beggars belief. What have the human race done countless times over but caused their own problems, destroyed parts of the planet and made life even harder for certain tribes of people?
I am also tired of people saying that we care about pandas because they are cute.
This is insulting and just a way of being.... More
Henry Humility
09/25/2009 14:40 PM
I'm not gonna even start with your grammar, you may want to get your G.E.D. if you want a decent job in the future. But it seems that your from the UK, so whatever equivalent should work. (little tip, if your verb is plural, your subject should be plural)
Why do you love pandas with a passion? Maybe if you described that, you wouldn't come off as a person with unrealistic beliefs that every animal should thrive all the time (thats just the tone I got).
Your sentence about the dragon at.... More
