The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Save the Pandas: Who Decides?

131 Comments

November 20, 2009 by Kathy McManus

We saved the whales and brought back the bald eagle. But are we pandering to pandas, instead of letting them go extinct? 

A British wildlife expert has touched off a passionate debate about man’s responsibility to beast by declaring that the time has come to “pull the plug” on pandas. Saying that “extinction is very much a part of life on earth," naturalist Chris Packham reasoned that the millions of dollars spent annually on an endangered species that is “extraordinarily expensive to keep going,” might be better spent conserving endangered habitats. If we “just bought rainforest,” Packham said, “we might be doing a better job.” 

Pandas--the cute, charismatic poster-bears of conservation fundraising—are indigenous to China, where they require enormous amounts of bamboo for sustenance. Now thought to number only 1,600, the notoriously fickle breeders' native habitat continues to shrink as China’s human population continues to expand.

“I’m not trying to play God,” Packham said. “I’m playing God’s accountant. I’m saying we won’t be able to save it all, so let’s do the best we can.” 

His remarks created panda-monium. “It’s a daft thing…to say, and an irresponsible one,” declared a fellow conservationist. “How about we pull the plug on the conservationists!” one person responded online. “Use the money we are paying them to take care of the pandas.” Said another, “I’m not ready to give up on the panda…We put ourselves in a position where we can pretend to be God, and I don’t think we’re up to the task.” 

Tell us what you think: Do we have a responsibility to keep all endangered species alive at any cost? If not, who chooses which survive and which do not? Should the panda be allowed to become extinct?

131 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• November 20, 2009 by jade1977

  I think that if we put the animal in harms way, by chemicals, or killing their natural habitats, etc., then we are responsible. If they are dying due to natural course of events, we should not play god.

  Reply

  • February 7, 2010 by kailee

    nich i am working on them nice post

    Reply

  • March 14, 2010 by Lisa G.

    Yes, we are the ones who have caused these animals to almost become extinct. It is not nature. Therefore we are the ones who need to try and right the wrong we have done to thier world and ours.

    Reply

• November 21, 2009 by Debra Williams

  Conservationists have differing ideologies. Originally, efforts were focused on a reasonable and logical basis to preserve natural resources which are fundamentally required to sustain healthy human life and existence. The 'movement' has morphed into very different pockets and trends, and today it is not uncommon to hear a self proclaimed 'conservationist' make statements such as those found here that mans life should be sacrificed for a particular animal (usually the cute ones, but not always) or worm, insect, etc. Many conservationists will avidly distinguish themselves from 'environmentalists' whom they find distasteful - and visa versa. Thus the 'labeling' or definition can no longer be taken at face value as one 'conservationist' differs from another and they clearly do not share a common ideology, nor do the environmentalists. Having said that, death is a very real part of life, for humans, creatures and critters, plants, and their derivatives and varieties. Dinosaurs are extinct and there are probably people who would argue for their necessity, too- if any where living today. As humans, we often engage in enjoying the 'fantasy' of 'eternal life' - which forms the basis of most religious groups....even if life is defined as 'after death'. In this fantasy, the person's spirit or soul - lives (regardless of all evidence to the contrary) on. Some religions are more radical than others in these claims and believes. Yet, those who care for the ailments of humans ( medical and psychological) along with those who provide care for all mammals, animals, birds - etc - all know full well that we have a life cycle and - well - we - they all 'die'. Some become extinct. This is an obvious part of life and yet many (not all) Conservationists and Environmentalist's fancy themselves quite capable of outsmarting - defying the essence and 'nature' of life and living. In some respects, they take on a many qualities of the radical religions of the day....eternal life is and should be the standard we wish to achieve for all species - or at least for the ones they select. A bit of arrogance - underlies this - of course. As we all know, such a thing is not possible. If it is inevitable for a particular species to 'die off' - there is usually another that is rising up to replace it. Man has always been quick and nimble to preserve his own life - to survive and from early on, if it came down to a dual between a man and a Panda- the very nature of survival of both - would result in a fight to the finish. The man has superior brain power - and is able to 'outsmart' the animal by way of using the intellectual discoveries and enhanced protection methods developed over he centuries - so but for a chance encounter, likely the 'man would win' that battle. Conservationism creates a 'moral' code and foundation that would seem to say a man should sacrifice himself for - a plant - a river- an animal etc. Another similarity to the foundation of most religious believes. Conservationists and environmentalists have, for the most part lost sight of its value and reasonable basis for sustainable life which was meant to preserve the planet for human life, which by necessity includes preservation and cultivation of plants, animals, and other creatures that by design make life better, safer, and cleaner for humans and those suited to the habitat to life. In losing sight of this - basic premise- they have turned to their governments to 'save the world' (which of course it can't either) and all the while - at least with the US government - the continue to regulate the care and use of animals and plants by - paying people not to grow, refusing to allow them to keep all but certain 'approved' animals on their land and even then only under certain conditions. They have been 'successful' in creating 'animal rights' which take precedent over individual human rights. So - the dysfunction - which comes from and is due to the lack of a firm solid foundation of premises - filters its way into conversations and discussions about preserving a cute animal over a human being. Sometimes these debates degrade to 'kill the humans to save the species' as one sees in some of these comments. Well - I would ask - if you allow the humans to be killed - who would be around to do the 'saving'? Only a human can decide to save something that has the capacity to destroy its life. For in nature, Panda's would not be saved, unless they possessed superior qualities over most other creatures allowing them to survive. As I happen to place human life over any specific type of animal, fish, plant or bug- I agree with the naturalist who makes sense. All life forms are not likely to go on forever.....as natural history will confirm....many become extinct - without any intervention of the part of humans. The universe contains many undiscovered secrets many many things that we don't even know we don't know - which probably makes up the bulk of knowledge undiscovered. If preserving a species is a mission of discovery to better our understanding of life....or it is a personal desire (such as Siegfried and Roy who preserve White Tigers - or a Horse Breeder who raises horses) then I think that is great. If it is aimed at holding human life and lives secondary to a plant or animal- or its underlying premises are to kill mankind, and/or make them extinct......well- I can't, won't don't want any part of it. Life on earth necessarily includes death, extinction of some animal types, creation of new life and life forms in the plant and animal kingdom every single minute. There is little one can do for very long to stop a natural process as that process will wash over us just like a tornado, hurricane, or other natural phenomenon. To consciously ignore this is useless silliness and only works against knowledge, discovery, and progress. Of course there are many many people who have no interest in even acknowledging that there are things that they don't know they don't know....as they are so certain that they have 'all the answers' , already. Another common thread of religions, conservationism, and environmentalism. They close their minds, bury their heads and don't care to be bothered with discovering any new or real 'the facts'. For the answer is already before them and they are sure of it, so thwarting, slowing and/or stopping any progress, research or discovery is the end result of all these groups and/or similar belief systems.

  Reply

  • April 1, 2010 by Brenda D Lemus

    Debra Williams, you need to take a course in ecology, biology, ethics, logic, and environmental science. Your comment exudes ignorance, arrogance and irresponsibility. BLemus

    Reply

• November 22, 2009 by jc

  Animals are being taken away of their natural land all because us humans are being selfish and greedy. these animals need our help! we should be putting the animals before ourselfs because they are the reason we are here today. We should do everything we can to help these poor creatures.

  Reply

  • June 6, 2010 by sidney

    pandas have been here and they should stay here but some people think otherwise and they should think about every single animal in the world then see what they say

    Reply

  • June 6, 2010 by sidney

    animals in this world should stay and when some are extinct we should try to save them .In the medevil, colonial, cavemen times we depended on them now we should return the favor.As our cities flourished nobody knew we were destroying important lives.

    Reply

• November 25, 2009 by Frances J. Jessup

  Jade said it very succinctly. Humankind has done such damage to our environment that I seriously doubt we can recover. Saving animals that we endanger is only the ethical thing to do.

  Reply

• November 27, 2009 by carly jade

  this is crazy, of coarse we need to help the pandas. we are the reason they are becoming extincted. we hunted them, we built homes on there land, we took them away from there homes and put them in captivaty we cut down there bamboo. if we dont fix this, there is something seriously f****D up about this planet

  Reply

  • December 2, 2009 by Tracy Roger

    We should save the pandas but it is a no way situation because if they set free they could either be hunted by hunters whom would kill them right on the spot or be killed by other wild animals such as lions whom get hungry and then hunt other animals such as baby bears and either way they get killed so believe or not like or not and even don't like it but maybe it is safe for them to be in a zoo so they won't get killed like said hunters or other animals could kill them right on the spot.

    Reply

• November 27, 2009 by hannah syas

  pandas should not be exstinct and we are the problem that is making them exstinct what we really need to do is help them think about it would you like to be exstinct?GONE!I dont think so,so if you die once or become exstinct you can't come back.

  Reply

• November 28, 2009 by John Rhoades

  I love how oversimplified people make problems like this: "Animals are being taken away of their natural land all because us humans are being selfish and greedy. " Ha. I'm sure it has nothing to do with individuals trying to feed their families and trying to find a place to live. What people think of as human selfishness often stems from really harsh economic and environmental facing real people. It's often not the case that there's just a slighter more difficult alternative. For many poor around the world it's "clear cut the forest for farmland" or "starve". What do we owe the Panda? Nothing. It's a giant, dumb, lazy animal that is ridiculously unadaptable. It's an evolutionary dead end. The "natural" course of things would have done away with them soon enough. To survive, a species needs to able to cope with changes in it's environment, and the giant panda shows no capacity for doing so.

  Reply

  • November 28, 2009 by hannah syas

    They have a right to life just as you. They are a creation just as you. Some humans are big dumb lazy animals and we don't kill them off. Panda's have more of a fight to survive all thats thrown at them, then man.

    Reply

  • November 28, 2009 by Hannah Syas

    Why is it all or nothing? Does man need every inch of land on the face of the earth? Is there no room for creatures?

    Reply

    • January 12, 2010 by Kennith Stasiuk

      If I had to pick a side in the argument I would pick John's. That's not to say that John is 100% right. What really resonated with me is: "I’m sure it has nothing to do with individuals trying to feed their families and trying to find a place to live." It's very easy for people to say we should save a species, but what happens if that species is on land that your family needs for their livelihood? Would you be so compassionate then? "Oh those terrible chinese people, expanding and putting such a burden on their wildlife." But can any modern society really claim to be innocent of that? On the other hand, I feel it would be prudent for us to do as much as we can, within reason, to help these animals recover. But how long we should fight is something I'm not sure of and furthermore, how long should we fight a losing fight when there are so many fights that we could win with the resources we are using on this losing fight.

    • March 7, 2010 by Stephen Mechinus

      I care about the extinction of these animals as long panda express stays in my city. Love that place.

  • December 24, 2009 by Karla Fischer

    That is one of the most insensitive, thoughtless things I have ever heard! They would, one of the most beautiful of God's creatures, become extinct!

    Reply

  • April 20, 2010 by Angela Matkin

    And how do you adapt to your surroundings? Build a big house, drive a big vehicle, shop at Wal-Mart for your produce? Panda's are much more adaptable than humans any day! You cannot begin understanding what other countries are going through for food until you have lived that life. Deforestation is ignorance on many parts not just the poor trying to feed their families but also among the companies wanting to get richer.

    Reply

  • April 28, 2010 by Anya Oates

    So let's say we let the Panda go extinct What, then, about the tiger? The lion. The polar bears. The whales. The many, many other species that are on the brink of extinction because people think they have more of a right on this earth than any other creature. This isn't just about the Panda. it's about our responsibility as stewards of the Earth. If we let the Panda go, then we might as well let all the other endangered species go, too. Then we'd be left with noting but rodents, lizards and insects and shameful humans. We need to stop talking about one species at a time and debate their right to exist. We need to discuss the endangered animal species AS A WHOLE. Once you look at the big picture and what it means to let them all go extinct, I think people will change their minds.

    Reply

  • May 3, 2010 by batman

    that is the most heartless inconsiderate thing i have ever heard.

    Reply

• November 28, 2009 by hannah syas

  many animals have become exstinct. What have the pandas ever done to us, that we as humans repay them by,causing the very things that make them become exstinct.

  Reply

• November 28, 2009 by hannah syas

  a lot of other animals are suffering but pandas are harmless

  Reply

• November 29, 2009 by Raeshell Birin

  I do believe it is our responability to save any animal that has been affected by the touch of humans. If the panda's source of food is being affected by the humans then of course it will affect the panda's well being. We have to ask ourselves would the panda have enough food if there were no humans? Are the humans a reason for this precious animal becoming endangered? Maybe a lack of food is the reason, but what is the reason for the lack of food? Also how many of these beautiful animals are hunted or taken captive? How does this affect the amount of panda's that are left? If the humans have anything to do with the panda's being endagered the YES we must help them. If cost is an issue in saving the panda then we must take a step back a really look at what humans spend their money on. I believe the cost to save any animal form extinction is well worth it. Please help them!!!

  Reply

• November 30, 2009 by Winthrop Staples

  By all the actual biological evidence the panda is a species is actually quite a well adapted species that would survive fine if humans did not destroy all of its habitat. They are a large bodied animal well able to defend themselves against natural predators as all bear like species are and they feed most on vegetation which is abundant. They have recently been seen to adapt well to varying cycles of their allegedly critical bamboo species by feeding on other species. So what we really have is the basic reluctance of environmentalists to address the human overpopulation problem head on. Instead what the 'majors' do is assume massive population increases are inevitable and then try to minimize the damage they cause. This is in the end a failing strategy. China has a population 4 times that of the USA a similar sized country so by definition if it is going to raise the living standards of its 1.3 billion to first world standards it will anhilate all othe life forms by competitive exclusion. Its too large population is the problem and this problem must not be ignored and pushed below the public media radar by the distractions of triage strategies that willl ultimately fail.

  Reply

• November 30, 2009 by Tsering Say

  The rate we're going, ALOT of animals will become extinct. Compared to that, a panda isn't going to make a difference; rather, we should let them become extinct. Once they have all died off, it will open a new pathway for other animals to evolve so they can cope with our problems. Instead, let's use that money for protecting what we can protect, like that guy said. We're much better off just buying the rainforest, and hiring patrols.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.