pandas or life? Choose!

Based on the word wild life article : http://worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda

 

Panda present on the WWF logo has become a true institution recognizable among others. Only a very few companies can claim to have such a strong symbol, as Nike or Adidas, but in the surrounding environmental it’s the only one. WWF has chosen Panda from its founding in September 1961. This is the year where the panda Chi Chi came to London Zoo. A wide animal threatened, which was very touching with his eyes surrounded by black. A great symbol for the founders of the WWF, who decide to make it their emblem. Thus, the panda has become the WWF logo and beyond, the nature’s conservation. They are so cute, we are all agree to admit it, but an issue is growing. Have we reason to try to save these big fluff or is that we are just prolonging the existence of a hopeless and wasteful species that the world should've given up on long ago? I have already made my decision, and in my very own opinion, the first test of a species' worthiness for conservation should be some instinct for self-preservation. And pandas are completely failing.

The article describes pandas as “peaceful creature with a distinctive black and white coat is adored by the world” witch having a “Crucial Role in Forests” endangered cause of the “Roads and railroads are increasingly fragmenting the forest, which isolates panda populations and prevents mating.”. Indeed pandas don't have much of a habitat left in the wild, thanks to heedless human development. But the decreasing number of pandats it is the only human fact?

First of all, their breeding habits don't suggest a species brimming with “energy” (if you know what I mean). Pandas at the research center in Chengdu were so disinclined to mate that employees must give their doses of viagra and videos of other bears procreating, hoping they'd do the same. Zoos more often resort to artificial insemination. In the wild, where birthrates aren't much better, pandas are prone to inbreeding. Females can only ovulate 2 or 3 days each year, and if a mother does manage to have more than one cub, she abandons the weaker. With such poor reproductive abilities it is understandable that the panda is endangered.

Second, although pandas has bear's predatory teeth, this lethargic and flabby creature eat just only bamboo, a plant that's nearly devoid of nutritional value and becomes scarce. Pandas consume between “26 to 84 pounds of it a day”, eating constantly, speeding their own demise.

Thereby zoos and right-minded specialist imagine they are doing the right thing helping these poor creature by preventing them from a certain death. "Here's a species that of its own accord has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac," Chris Packham, a British author and wildlife activist, said in 2009. He argues that "the panda is possibly one of the grossest wastes of conservation money in the last half-century." And unfortunately he's completely right. The economics of protecting this doomed species are simply unjustifiable. Canada in 2010 spent ten million dollars renting the creatures from China while cutting government spending elsewhere. American zoos typically pay the Chinese government one million dollars annually for a single panda. Taking care of them, supplying them with a habitat, staff and all that bamboo costs five times what it costs for elephants, the next most expensive zoo animal, it’s a number too big for a so useless beat.

Lu Zhi, a panda expert from Beijing University, has said that trying to reintroduce pandas to the wild is as "pointless as taking off the pants in order to fart." Yet the Chinese government, for which pandas is a source of national pride, spares no expense on them. What is particularly revolting when we think that it’s a country where roughly 160 million people still live in extreme poverty.

Of course it is the responsibility of the human being to preserve nature, but we must ask the right questions. It would be wonderful if we could afford to protect every species animals, but unfortunately this is not the case, we must make difficult choices. It is the very principle of Darwinism, evolution as the lowest ultimately disappear in favor of the strong and all that money is better spent on preserving diverse species rather than on a single hopeless animal. Why not instead use it to save another species with the threat of extinction is much more fraught with consequences: bees. In France, for thirty years, bee populations are declining. This phenomenon concerns other parts of Europe, North America and Asia.

Want to be scared? Try to imagine life without pollinators. You can’t? Actually it’s normal cause it’s impossible, their disappearance would most likely lead to the death of all ecosystems on earth. “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have only four years to live” Albert Einstein.