Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the when-is-hunting-season dept.

The giant panda, commonly a symbol for conservation, is no longer considered an endangered species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

In an update to their Red List of Threatened Species on Sunday (Sept. 4), which assesses a species' conservation status, the IUCN reported the giant panda population has improved enough for the endangered species label to be downgraded to "vulnerable."

[...] Including cubs, the current [wild] population count is approaching 2,060, the organization said. The report credits forest protection and reforestation measures in China for increasing the available habitat for the species.

Including pandas living in captivity, the total population is approximately 2500.

http://www.livescience.com/55991-giant-pandas-no-longer-endangered.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:33AM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:33AM (#398627) Journal

    I'm with Chris Packham on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/6216775/Chris-Packham-Giant-pandas-should-be-allowed-to-die-out.html [telegraph.co.uk]

    He is on record as saying that he would personally eat the last giant Panda if it meant all of the money currently spent on preserving this one species was used on other conservation causes.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:38AM

    by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:38AM (#398628) Journal

    So, do you think that forest protection and regrowth do nothing to help other creatures?

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:35AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:35AM (#398650) Journal

      I'm sure it does, but that's irrelevant. If the Panda money had been spent elsewhere, it would have helped to preserve / regrow some other natural habitat, and benefited other creatures in those environments instead. Therefore the "habitat regrowth" arguments cancel one another out. All you're left with is the actual species itself. I've nothing in particular against giant panda (except that they don't exactly help efforts to preserve them, seeing as they can't even be bothered to mate half the time) but the point is they are disproportionately expensive to save. The same money could have probably helped or saved dozens of frog, crab, insect or fish species but nobody gives a shit about them because they aren't cute and fluffy.

      It's like spending half your hospital budget on expensive treatments to marginally extend the lifespan of one terminal patient while hundreds of other patients die in the corridors of curable ailments due to lack of funding. At some point you have to look at the numbers and decide how to get the most benefit out of your finite resources.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:46PM (#398664)

        According to the Wikipedia link, pandas mate at similar levels compared to other bears (they just don't like to in captivity).

        Pandas generate money for conservation because they're cute - the money wouldn't be going to conservation efforts without them. If we're going to live in a make-believe world where people act rationally, then why not use the money that pays for reality TV to save other species?

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:33PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:33PM (#398705)

        It's like spending half your hospital budget on expensive treatments to marginally extend the lifespan of one terminal patient while hundreds of other patients die in the corridors of curable ailments due to lack of funding. At some point you have to look at the numbers and decide how to get the most benefit out of your finite resources.

        Reminds me of the pamphlet they gave me after one of the first couple times I donated blood. There was a story in it about some guy whose life was saved via infusion of 17 pints of blood.

        Hey, how about you use those 17 pints to save 17 different people instead of this one guy who's gushing blood like a firehose? And they complain about blood shortages!

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:13PM (#398728)

          they complain about cheap blood shortages

          FTFY.
          Donated blood is bought and sold.

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:08PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:08PM (#399358)

        I'm sure it does, but that's irrelevant. If the Panda money had been spent elsewhere, it would have helped to preserve / regrow some other natural habitat, and benefited other creatures in those environments instead.

        If you want to go just by numbers of species preserved, they can start buying large swaths of tropical rain forest for permanent protection. That won't bring in the funding like pandas do though. It is also ignoring the fact that apex species like Giant pandas tend to have an effect on the entire ecosystem they inhabit. There are likely numerous other species in the forests the panda inhabits that will disappear as well if the pandas do.

    • (Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:48AM

      by scruffybeard (533) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:48AM (#398653)

      That is not what he said. Truck loads of resources are being dedicated to a single species that seems intent on going extinct all by itself. I draw from the article that even if we were to bring them back from the brink, there is no place to release them back to in the wild that would allow them to survive on their own. They are forever dependent on humans. Could those resources be better spent elsewhere?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:41PM (#398661)

    Pandas are PR for conservation in general. Little kids love them, adults love them, Chinese love them. So do Westerners.

    It's hard to get the average person enthusiastic about saving some salamander.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:07PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:07PM (#398894) Homepage
    Fuck that moderate stance. Kill the fucking giant pandas. They are so evolutionarily maladapted that we're just keeping them alive on a live-glug, with no benefit to anyone.

    You can get dogs that look just like smallish giant pandas, let the fitness function support them instead.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves