Perspective on a recent BBC conservation documentary.
In my experience the more you know about a subject, the more disconcerting it is to see the popular media cover it. By and large, the approach of the popular media to any information is done with the intent to tell a story; and this can't just be any story, it has to resonate with the audience. Producers and directors are smart people, they got where they were by knowing what their audience likes to see, and what should be left out. IMHO everything you read/see is inaccurate, it's all just a matter of degree. I do agree that BBC is better than most, but they do cater to their audience.
why is it that we only give a fuck about certain species going extinct when 16 species go extinct every day i find it sanctimonious and arrogant. Panda bears should be extinct they would not be here without human intervention. We do not have the right to make judgments on which creatures deserve to be saved thats natures job.
Yeah, but we are part of nature, so if we're making decisions then that's nature making decisions! The long and short of it is it doesn't really matter that species go extinct. They go extinct all the time, other species fill the niche, new species emerge, and life goes on, always changing. One day humans will be extinct too. The fact that pandas are cute and thus we want to save them demonstrates very nicely a survival trait of pandas -- cuteness. I wonder what other species have been saved because we find them pleasing? All part of the scheme of nature! It's absolutely wonderful! (no sarcasm intended here)
You hit on a topic that I've often thought about. Take cats, for example. They typically don't meow at other cats, only people. And they have certain other behaviors that they only use when interacting with humans, along with big eyes and round faces, baby-like traits that we can't resist as a people. Now, cats are very interesting because they are the only domestic animal that is almost entirely naturally selected (something like <5% of cats are bred intentionally). So, this begs the question: Have cats evolved "cuteness". They really serve no purpose other than companionship, and unlike dogs, whom we have bred to contain the traits we desire, they come by their desirability honestly. Can their cuteness be considered as part of their survival mechanism, a ploy to get gullible humans to feed and house them? My suspicion is yes.
I've said it before: People have dogs for pets, and cats have people for pets. A dog will run into a burning house to save its owner. A cat won't cross a running vacuum cleaner for its owner's sake. :)Can their cuteness be considered as part of their survival mechanism, a ploy to get gullible humans to feed and house them? My suspicion is yes.
But isn't it also true that pandas would not be threatened, except for human intervention? I was under the impression that loss of habitat was the primary reason for panda endangerment (as a species). Are you arguing that human encroachment upon habitats of other animals is "nature" doing its job? By that logic, we should never be concerned about any species loss, ever. It's just "nature" !
Exactly, and intervention to prevent the extermination of pandas (for example) is an exercising of that force.
That's a very good point - the real answer is 'because pandas are cute', of course. But I'd wager that it's more often the less-known, less-cute species that are more important, in terms of retaining a healthy ecosphere.