Pandas. WTF?
- Thread starter Krisken
- Start date
- Status
W
Wasabi Poptart
Panda's. WTF?
Why did you use apostrophes to pluralize pandas and koalas?
Oh and they are too cute to die.
Why did you use apostrophes to pluralize pandas and koalas?
Oh and they are too cute to die.
Panda's. WTF?
You've put apostrophes where there shouldn't be any. You have done grammar a great disservice today.
You've put apostrophes where there shouldn't be any. You have done grammar a great disservice today.
W
Wasabi Poptart
Panda's. WTF?
^5 checkeredhat
^5 checkeredhat
S
Steven Soderburgin
Panda's. WTF?
Fuckin' Pandas. How do they work?
Fuckin' Pandas. How do they work?
Panda's. WTF?
While I have no doubt I could get that right, no, no I shouldn't.Now the question is... should Krisken reproduce?
W
Wasabi Poptart
Panda's. WTF?
You could blame the brandy for that if you didn't get it right.
While I have no doubt I could get that right, no, no I shouldn't.[/QUOTE]Now the question is... should Krisken reproduce?
You could blame the brandy for that if you didn't get it right.
P
Philosopher B.
Panda's. WTF?
You know, this is funny, because in my Environmental Science classes, the prof had this running joke where he'd go on rants about how the panda was an imbecile and how they ought to be allowed to die out because people had to show them panda porn. He became very animated whenever the subject came up (which was often, lol).
We were also supposed to bring in articles every week related to science and the environment, and after a while if there was a panda story, people automatically brought it in. God, that was a great class. That dude also introduced me to JibJab when he 'shopped a dean's head onto a hula-dancer and sent it around anonymously. I learned a lot in those classes (that had nothing to do with JibJab, mind).
Edit: Typos.
You know, this is funny, because in my Environmental Science classes, the prof had this running joke where he'd go on rants about how the panda was an imbecile and how they ought to be allowed to die out because people had to show them panda porn. He became very animated whenever the subject came up (which was often, lol).
We were also supposed to bring in articles every week related to science and the environment, and after a while if there was a panda story, people automatically brought it in. God, that was a great class. That dude also introduced me to JibJab when he 'shopped a dean's head onto a hula-dancer and sent it around anonymously. I learned a lot in those classes (that had nothing to do with JibJab, mind).
Edit: Typos.
Cajungal
Staff member
Panda's. WTF?
Awww, I kid. ^_^
While I have no doubt I could get that right, no, no I shouldn't.[/QUOTE]Now the question is... should Krisken reproduce?
Awww, I kid. ^_^
Panda's. WTF?
Awww, I kid. ^_^[/QUOTE]
hehe, I know. We decided long ago that neither of us was interested in having kids.
As for the pandas and what brought on this thread- I saw a video where a panda was having trouble navigating stairs. STAIRS. I mean, really? The block that moves upward gives you trouble? I can't help but wonder how these things lasted so long.
While I have no doubt I could get that right, no, no I shouldn't.[/QUOTE]Now the question is... should Krisken reproduce?
Awww, I kid. ^_^[/QUOTE]
hehe, I know. We decided long ago that neither of us was interested in having kids.
As for the pandas and what brought on this thread- I saw a video where a panda was having trouble navigating stairs. STAIRS. I mean, really? The block that moves upward gives you trouble? I can't help but wonder how these things lasted so long.
Panda's. WTF?
The ones in the wild are going extinct due to hunting, poaching, and the destruction of their habitat. That nice bamboo flooring you've been dreaming about? There's a cost to that.
Pretty sure it's only the panda's in captivity that are having a problem. I can't say I'd be terribly interested procreation if I was in captivity and knew my kids would be too.
-Adam
The ones in the wild are going extinct due to hunting, poaching, and the destruction of their habitat. That nice bamboo flooring you've been dreaming about? There's a cost to that.
Pretty sure it's only the panda's in captivity that are having a problem. I can't say I'd be terribly interested procreation if I was in captivity and knew my kids would be too.
-Adam
Panda's. WTF?
It's probably the same problem Dalmatians are having: they've been inbred so much, they'd become dumber than most of the royal families of Europe.
Panda's. WTF?
Lay off da hooch!
Lay off da hooch!
Panda's. WTF?
Anyway, yeah, Pandas are idiots. I'm torn on the human struggle to keep them alive, because I do know that they are so endangered because of human meddling like deforestation and hunting, but I also do think nature has selected them for extinction, based on what an inefficient animal it is.
Anyway, yeah, Pandas are idiots. I'm torn on the human struggle to keep them alive, because I do know that they are so endangered because of human meddling like deforestation and hunting, but I also do think nature has selected them for extinction, based on what an inefficient animal it is.
Panda's. WTF?
-Adam
They are actually very efficient, and they were selected for by nature after what, thousands of years of natural selection?
Only if you subscribe to the notion that humans are "natural." It's a reasonable assumption, but is it strictly true?
-Adam
Panda's. WTF?
S
Steven Soderburgin
Panda's. WTF?
I'm not saying we shouldn't accept responsibility for what we HAVE done either, but what I am saying is it might be a better use of our time and efforts to help out an animal with some better odds.
And, I also want to say that this is strictly the logical side of my brain speaking. As I said, my opinion on the issue is torn between two sides. As it is impossible to know what would have (Should have?) happened without human deforestation, pollution and hunting, its just as easy to argue that we need to make every last effort to make up for every bit of the damage we've done.
An animal that has everything required to eat meat, yet all but ignores meat as a dietary option, relying instead on a plant that gives almost no energy in its consumption, is not an efficient animal. And do you honestly think nature is done selecting and that this is the end, that what we have on earth now is the final product? Because unless I am misreading your post, which is quite possible because its 2am and I'm only online cause I can't fall asleep despite being dead tired, that is more or less the implication of what you are arguing.
My point is that I think the panda would be going extinct with or without human intervention. Unfortunately humans in all our grand idiocy, sped it up by probably a couple thousand years.
I'm not saying we shouldn't accept responsibility for what we HAVE done either, but what I am saying is it might be a better use of our time and efforts to help out an animal with some better odds.
And, I also want to say that this is strictly the logical side of my brain speaking. As I said, my opinion on the issue is torn between two sides. As it is impossible to know what would have (Should have?) happened without human deforestation, pollution and hunting, its just as easy to argue that we need to make every last effort to make up for every bit of the damage we've done.
W
wana10
Panda's. WTF?
Panda's. WTF?
Ok, compare the panda's efficiency to human efficiency. How much energy do we consume vs work that we output? I bet you'll find it's a tad higher than a pandas.
But it's a moot point. Unless you and I agree on the same definition of efficient, then we'll never come to agreement on whether pandas meet the requirements or not.
So I'm interested to understand the natural selection pressures they were facing aside from humans.
In this particular case we can't do anything anyway. Their natural habitat is nearly 100% contained in a country that has a great need to improve its economy. Every nation goes through the stage where they strip the land of every easily available resource in order to move themselves ahead quickly. Most often it's far too late by the time people realize that they've gone too far.
Still, there are buffalo herds in the USA, despite near extinction. I suspect that the Chinese are trying to allay fears of extinction by keeping some in captivity so they can still log the land - they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The effort they are going to in order to increase the breeding rate is just an extension of this. If they fail then more pressure will be put on them to leave huge tracts of profitable land alone for the sake of some black and white bears.
But I have a hard time believing they were already only a few thousand years away from extinction...
-Adam
Are you arguing that a creature which has body features it does not use is inefficient? Then in that case there are few organisms on this planet that meet your high bar for efficiency.
Ok, compare the panda's efficiency to human efficiency. How much energy do we consume vs work that we output? I bet you'll find it's a tad higher than a pandas.
But it's a moot point. Unless you and I agree on the same definition of efficient, then we'll never come to agreement on whether pandas meet the requirements or not.
No, not at all. But I am suggesting that after so much natural selection on that one line (ie, there are no "close" relatives) and the fact that they were quite populous prior to their habitat being destroyed, then, by definition, nature has selected for them. My point was that they are being destroyed now not by natural selection, but by human invasion.
Oh? What evidence is there of this? Who are their predators? Who was going to deprive them of their food source or habitat, if not humans? They are carnivorous, and will eat most animals that bother them, and other animals that might attack are, more often than not, beaten by the panda.
So I'm interested to understand the natural selection pressures they were facing aside from humans.
No, I think that's a much harder argument to make. Who is to say that we are responsible to the plant we deprive of sunlight when we cast a shadow on it? I suspect a middle-of-the-road approach is best in the long run. We shouldn't fell guilty for using resources to move ourselves forward. However, we should act in moderation, and in fact should consider ourselves stewards of the resources here. Either extreme is bad.
In this particular case we can't do anything anyway. Their natural habitat is nearly 100% contained in a country that has a great need to improve its economy. Every nation goes through the stage where they strip the land of every easily available resource in order to move themselves ahead quickly. Most often it's far too late by the time people realize that they've gone too far.
Still, there are buffalo herds in the USA, despite near extinction. I suspect that the Chinese are trying to allay fears of extinction by keeping some in captivity so they can still log the land - they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The effort they are going to in order to increase the breeding rate is just an extension of this. If they fail then more pressure will be put on them to leave huge tracts of profitable land alone for the sake of some black and white bears.
But I have a hard time believing they were already only a few thousand years away from extinction...
-Adam
figmentPez
Staff member
Panda's. WTF?
Wow, poll results now show who voted for what.
Wow, poll results now show who voted for what.
Panda's. WTF?
They are not carnivorous, they are omnivorous, but they eat almost no meat at all. They are built to be hunters, and yet they don't hunt. Which is what I meant about their "inefficiency"
I think I'm just not expressing myself well tonight and that you and I actually see the matter in more or less the same way, although you clearly are much more educated on the subject.
I think you could look at their no close relatives from the other angle though. With no prospective mates outside its subspecies to further its evolution and branch off, it will hit an evolutionary dead end and be forced to inbreed. This is all just me thinking outloud here, so I will say that with the panda population where it was before humans effed it up, this would likely not have taken any longer than with any other animal species, but other animals usually have other subspecies they can mate with successfully, like how polar bears have been known to mate with grizzlies, which has become increasingly common as numbers of both are dwindling and polar bears are coming further south because of the melting ice caps.
Extinction can happen in more than one way. It is pure speculation on my part, and again I freely admit that. But it has always seemed to me that a reproductive rate like the panda's, with so many failed attempts, is not a good sign from an evolutionary standpoint. Obviously its to keep the population in check, but any kind of natural disaster or disease could cause havok that would not be able to be corrected.
They are not carnivorous, they are omnivorous, but they eat almost no meat at all. They are built to be hunters, and yet they don't hunt. Which is what I meant about their "inefficiency"
As I stated, I was expressing the two extreme ways I view the issue, and I sit somwhere in the middle, unsure of either side.
I think I'm just not expressing myself well tonight and that you and I actually see the matter in more or less the same way, although you clearly are much more educated on the subject.
Yeah, you're probably right.
Panda's. WTF?
Koalas and Pandas are very angry animals
I would elaborate but I'm kinda drunk. Look it up in youtube, though, they're dickholes.
Koalas and Pandas are very angry animals
I would elaborate but I'm kinda drunk. Look it up in youtube, though, they're dickholes.
figmentPez
Staff member
Panda's. WTF?
Then of course they don't live in places with little bamboo instead of lower on the mountains where there is tons of bamboo.
They are inefficient creatures. Ones that I don't think should be allowed to go extinct but inefficient creatures none the less.
Actually he's saying that by biology Pandas should be eating meat. They don't eat meat because of a tastebud mutation. So instead they eat bamboo, an absolute ton of bamboo that their body isn't designed to digest but instead rely on the bacteria in their digestive track to get any energy from.
Then of course they don't live in places with little bamboo instead of lower on the mountains where there is tons of bamboo.
They are inefficient creatures. Ones that I don't think should be allowed to go extinct but inefficient creatures none the less.
Also there is no real "end state" to evolution. Everything continues to mutate and advance.
E
Element 117
Pandas are far more awesome than Krisken's beard.
- Status