Dear Giant Panda,
Please understand that this is nothing personal.
Giant pandas are charismatic, fascinating creatures. From a biological perspective, I find them so very interesting. I really like them. And yet, I think it may be the time to let them drift off into extinction or, at the very least, reconsider our approach to their conservation. I do not say this lightly.
The panda has some sort of monochrome charisma which has grabbed our attention. Its greatest evolutionary asset has been that it looks like a teddy. It is iconic and has raised the profile of wildlife the world over. The money its persona raises contributes to a myriad of other worthwhile projects and for this I am grateful. But to care overly about it because of its image, amounts to the cult of celebrity within the conservation movement. I would prefer that we better educate ourselves on the plight of the natural world, rather than patronise by tugging on heart strings. If we pander to such emotional irrationality then we risk making the wrong choices when we are faced with some tough decisions. And we are facing some tough decisions. To protect the panda at the expense of other species is to greatly underestimate the plight of global wildlife.
We are presiding over the biggest mass extinction since the time of the dinosaurs. It is hard to believe that we are as lethal as a meteor, but we are. That is the scale of the problem and, to my mind, this is what should be the primary concern of conservation.
Everyday somewhere between 100 and 200 species go extinct. In many cases these are species that we have never even seen or documented. This is a loss in itself, but it may be useful to view it in more tangible and practical terms. With these species will die cures for disease that are hidden within the biochemistry of their cells, new food sources from exotic and undiscovered crops, new materials and textiles, so much unstudied and unknown potential. The biological world is one of our greatest assets. A study by the United Nations in 2008 suggested that the destruction of the Earth's natural resources was costing us trillions of dollars each year. They estimate that 40% of the global economy is based on biological products and processes. Biodiversity loss, it says, is becoming a greater concern for business than international terrorism.
In light of this, we must prioritise. It is just a question of how best to use conservation money. It is a very limited pot and we have to focus on where we get most biology for our buck.
In general, though there are exceptions, it is better to take a habitat-based rather than species-based approach to conservation. If we look after their environment, the species that live there tend to look after themselves. This, I am pleased to say, is the focus of much panda conservation; it is its best hope. With this approach, many other species, including the red panda and the golden monkey, are also being saved by association. I really hope it works, but if it does not, it will be unwise to continue to throw good money after bad on what might be a lost cause. I know that this sounds callous, but if we are not surgical in our thinking, we risk losing so much more.
My dear Giant Panda, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. If you go, I will miss you, but I think that we should see other species.
As part of Biology Week 2012, the Society of Biology is organising a public debate on 'Do we need pandas?'. You can vote in the 'Should we save the panda?' poll, and join the online debate. I am one of the panellists.
Follow Simon Watt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@SimonDWatt
Green Futures: See No Evil, Hear No Evil
Biodiversity is the problem not cute grass eating bears.
Biodiversity are the community members of ecosystems and create and sustain all ecosystems.
The author is all for preserving habitats -- including that of the pandas -- but he believes that focusing on one particularly adorable species is myopic, when less photogenic species are going extinct all the time. And you couldn't get past the fact that pandas are cute ... which was exactly the author's point.
Many writers have attempted to draw attention to the preservation of biodiversity's habitat preservation as this, alone, saves "countless species". The Endangered Species act was criticized because, it fails to protect the entire ecosystem/habitat, food, shelter and nurseries of countless species. Ecosystems not only supply natural resources, they alone and their countless species of biodiversity, create and sustain all of humankind's life supporting services, cycles and systems or life itself.
Extinction of biodiversity endangers human existence, right up there with thermonuclear war. An ecosystem is only as stable and life giving as all of its species of both plant and animal biodiversity. We can't save anything if we continue to skin the natural, life giving surface of Earth or ecosystems that create the very life zone of the Earth, the biosphere/ecosphere.
Agent Smith:
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not.
You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. --The Matrix
We need to stop acting like a virus, and start acting like compassionate, intelligent mammals.
Save the Panda, the whales, the Earth.
Before it's too late ...even for us.
We also have huge numbers of deaths by transportation, esp cars, each year. Something other mammals generally don't have to worry about.
Also, we HAVE the knowledge of what happens when we overpopulate, and the ability to control our numbers thru birth control, esp chemical birth control. However, we refuse to even TRY to control the population, citing our "God given right" as humans to overpopulate and destroy our own and other species habitat if we so choose.
and migration routes from ALL intrusion. Mankind has to learn to share.
I think the damage done is far to great at this point!
Of course, personally I am against getting rid of the species that I belong to, as well as my friends and family. But all the species going extinct due to human activity, if they were smart enough to understand what was going on, they would personally be against humanity continuing to exist and driving them into extinction, and want to turn the tables on us. Humanity probably WILL go extinct anyway, not because we want to, but out of our own foolishness and mistakes.
What is this nonsense about saying goodbye to pandas?
Better yet, why don't we say goodbye to Simon Watt?
I was asked to write this piece as a preview for a coming debate at the Society of Biology concerning panda conservation. I am one of the panelists.
I think the reason they are debating the panda specifically is because, yes it is famous but also because its conservation is on the more expensive end of spectrum and there is a great deal of interesting political baggage attached to this species. To my knowledge their conservation is more expensive than tigers and rhinos.
I would hope that we can bring a shift in culture where we can see the appeal and importance of a great many other species and ecosystems too.
What the hell does that even mean? If there are more important habitats than the Pandas, wouldn't this article be a good place for this "expert" to tell us about them? When you save a habitat you save all the species there, not just one species.
If you're complaining about zoos trying to breed Pandas that is pretty much irrelevant, but zoos use them as focal points for fundraising BECAUSE people relate to them, just as awareness of endangered "cute" species educate people about the bigger problem.
If people like this writer are in charge of coming up with intelligent ideas to save biodiversity, bye bye earth.
If the panda's ecosystem disappears, there goes the panda and countless other strands in the web of all life. For every extinction, Earth moves closer to extinction in her ability to create and support all life.
The author' s focus was on the plight of all biodiversity and the salvation of Earth's ecosystems, that not only saves countless species, but human existence and the Earth.
We relate to things, and also people, more strongly when we know their names. We'll be more sad about the demise of two neighbors than about that of a million anonymous foreigners. Similarly the fate of the panda naturally is a more emotional issue for us than that of another species we can't name. This is something to build upon, not something to discard.
Good luck getting a wilderness area set aside in China or anywhere else for between "100 and 200 species", often "species that we have never even seen or documented". If there are pandas, Bengal tigers or bald eagles there, you might get it done. If not, you won't. And that is so even and especially if we let the species we know and hold dear go.
Our opinion of what species to save isn't about a flagship specie; it is the keystone specie, like America's wolves and beavers that carry the entire ecosystem on their backs. The more living diversity within an ecosystem, the more alive, stable and life giving the ecosystem, from microorganisms in the soil through countless inter-linked chains of species that create and sustain the one organism, the ecosystem. Ecosystems are the natural and wild Earth or the eco-nomy of life itself.
Man's existence is endangered when any specie falls extinct. Amphibians and reptiles are the most endangered and are in the vital eco-nomy of 99% of all pest control that protects agriculture and more importantly, these species protect humankind from deadly human disease pathogens, some of which possess the capability of wiping out the vast majority of mankind. Every specie within an ecosystem is profoundly interconnected. What you do to one, harms the whole, weakening the web of life.
But still, not only do I hope that we can learn to see the bigger picture, I think it is essential. I merely think we have to prioritize.
Recently it has been suggested that it will take about £50bn (about $76bn) to reach our current conservation targets. It is expensive but a wise investment. Nowhere near this amount of money is currently being made available. We have to do the best we can with what we have, and by and large we know that habitat approaches are more effective. There are many other important ecosystems out there that lack charismatic mega fauna and we cannot afford to forget about them.