Natural Selection... or Unnatural Protection?

Amy Austin | September 23, 2009
I was a bit stunned to see a news feature where a "noted naturalist" suggests that pandas should be allowed to die out -- he actually used the phrase ...pull the plug. Let them go, with a degree of dignity...

There isn't much else to the body of the article, in which said naturalist (Chris Packham... a name that already suggests a hatred of animals, imo) argues that wildlife conservation money would be better spent on more viable species (i.e., stronger, less costly to protect) than the "big and cute" WWF icon... who is apparently endangered of its own volition. Oh, and while we're at it... ehh... fuck the tigers, too.

I'm supposing that my own feelings on this guy's opinion should be apparent. Anyone else?

Samir Mehta | September 23, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 24, 2009
Cuteness has very little to do with it, in my opinion. Pandas are distinctly magnificent creatures, unlike any other... as are tigers. And I daresay that I'd have felt the same way about the dodo bird, with its face that practically only a mother could love (and some may still call it "cute"), were it still alive today. Yes, cute is popular -- and garners money for other species, too, don't forget -- but I find it to be much more about our arrogance and encroachment as a species. We are like the animal equivalent of kudzu and flying potato vine. We grow and grow and populate until we choke out every other living thing that isn't "fit" enough to adapt to our invasive presence. And even with the distinguishing characteristic that we have the ability to be self-aware and discriminatory in our existence, we *still* have more gall than conscience when it comes to *deciding* to continue choking out everything around us... or which cute furries to try to "save" from our invasion.

The second naturalist quoted (Mark Wright... these names almost suggest an Onion piece, I tell you) sums up my outrage best:

"Pandas have adapted to where they live. They live in the mountains where there is plenty of the bamboo they want to eat.

"It's like saying the blue whale is in an evolutional cul-de-sac because it lives in the ocean," Wright added.

And one day -- maybe not in our lifetimes, but possibly one day -- someone will probably be having this same discussion about the fate of the blue whale, too.

Samir Mehta | September 24, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 24, 2009
Commentators on the BBC are not as known for inflammatory comments as much as their counterparts on, say, Fox News, but this still strikes me as an opinion-maker trying to stir controversy by choosing harsh words, or perhaps just someone who got too relaxed during an interview and just spoke his mind. If you strip away the unnecessarily mean tone of what he's saying, his core message is a positive one: We can save more animals more effectively by distributing conservation funds differently. It would be a shame if his message was not even considered just because he's an asshole.

For what it's worth, he did apologize for his comments.

Jackie Mason | September 24, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | September 24, 2009
I think the "pull the plug" analogy is apt, and calls to mind end-of-life issues relevant in the domestic health care debate. Leaving aside partisan scare tactics, ie "death panels," it's a fact that we spend a tremendous percentage of health care dollars in the last few months of life, often for the sole purpose of prolonging life as long as possible. We do this, I think, because we fear death and struggle against its inevitability. As a result, though, we spend unimaginable amounts of money on extraordinary life-extending procedures for the very old and very sick.

From what I can tell, this guy is saying the panda is the species equivalent of a 90-year old with pancreatic cancer and heart failure. You can do surgery and put her on a ventilator, and this might - might - extend her life a few months, maybe more. But she isn't going to get better, and she is going to die. How best to spend those dollars?

Steve Dunn | September 24, 2009
I should say I'm not anti-panda and I don't have a strong opinion on the panda issue. I'm more interested in the health care cost issue and this reminded me of that.

Jackie Mason | September 24, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 24, 2009
Okay, if you really want to run with this analogy... I'll bite.

On the way we run health care. Yeah... we do spend obscene amounts when it appears to count the least. Is it really such a big deal, though, if the old/dying in question has led an otherwise healthy and rather complication-free life? And so what if they haven't? It isn't like we, as a culture, support euthanasia for the sick/dying... just ask Dr. Kevorkian. And even without a ventilator, just making someone comfortable at the end of their natural life can still require money and/or attending providers, if not procedures. Patrick Swayze was a relatively young man with a very aggressive -- and usually quite painful -- form of cancer; my own grandfather died (at 82) within two months of diagnosis... and relatively pain-free, thankfully. But that's how cancer is -- the younger you are, the longer it will take to kill you... because the more resources you have to fight it. And I don't mean financial/medical resources, either, but... why not. What should anyone dying a slow death do... just lie down and wait for it??? Yes. But only when that's all there is left to do.

On the "aptness" of the analogy for the panda species. Not so much. I do not see "her" to be the 90-year old pancreatic cancer patient with heart failure you describe, so much as I do a 45-year old who's been beaten and raped by a gang of thugs. "She" is not a burden of decrepitude, so much as she is a victim of crime who can, in fact, recover to at least the health of her middle-aged years... and her abusers can be stopped, if so chosen.