Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[mjmooney]

 

Panda's are great

As in because they amuse and entertain you? Because as a Darwinean, survival of the fittest they are the opposite of great.

 

 

But you could argue that being cute and cuddly looking is evolutionarily advantageous, as it gets us humans to protect them far more than we would if they looked like lampreys or camel spiders.

[AVFCforever1991]

Exactly Mike

[Stevo985]

 

 

Panda's are great

As in because they amuse and entertain you? Because as a Darwinean, survival of the fittest they are the opposite of great.

 

 

But you could argue that being cute and cuddly looking is evolutionarily advantageous, as it gets us humans to protect them far more than we would if they looked like lampreys or camel spiders.

 

Agreed.

 

The fact that they still exist prove they work. Even if it's because we're keeping them alive.

Humans aren't an exception to the world.

[AVFCforever1991]

[Stevo985]

Conor runs into a panda whilst at the supermarket

[Frobisher]

They're pretty widespread, if you post on any of the big websites you'll have heard of them.

We've got ourselves a bronie!

[BOF]

Panda's are great

As in because they amuse and entertain you? Because as a Darwinean, survival of the fittest they are the opposite of great.

 

But you could argue that being cute and cuddly looking is evolutionarily advantageous, as it gets us humans to protect them far more than we would if they looked like lampreys or camel spiders.

If someone did seriously argue that as being the case, given the very short amount of time we've actually been conserving them (and by extension they haven't evolved visually at all in that space of time), then I fear that person wouldn't have much of a grasp of evolution. It might be advantageous that we find them cute out of dumb luck on their part, but they haven't evolved to that end. So it could be argued alright, but dismissed as the ravings of a loony just as quickly

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

Panda's are great

As in because they amuse and entertain you? Because as a Darwinean, survival of the fittest they are the opposite of great.

 

 

But you could argue that being cute and cuddly looking is evolutionarily advantageous, as it gets us humans to protect them far more than we would if they looked like lampreys or camel spiders.

 

If someone did seriously argue that as being the case, given the very short amount of time we've actually been conserving them (and by extension they haven't evolved visually at all in that space of time), then I fear that person wouldn't have much of a grasp of evolution. It might be advantageous that we find them cute out of dumb luck on their part, but they haven't evolved to that end. So it could be argued alright, but dismissed as the ravings of a loony just as quickly

 

I'd argue that dumb luck is precisely what evolution is based on.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Stevo985

[BOF]

I'd argue that dumb luck is precisely what evolution is based on.

Yes true but it's not quite the same. That would only apply if we were letting the ugly pandas die off. We're not. We're trying to keep them all alive out of some kind of a; I dunno; moral conscience. It's like we feel responsible for every animal that goes extinct. Animals have been going extinct forever and the panda quite clearly wants to join their ranks.

[K-Carlsen]

 

 

 

 

Panda's are great

As in because they amuse and entertain you? Because as a Darwinean, survival of the fittest they are the opposite of great.

 

 

But you could argue that being cute and cuddly looking is evolutionarily advantageous, as it gets us humans to protect them far more than we would if they looked like lampreys or camel spiders.

 

If someone did seriously argue that as being the case, given the very short amount of time we've actually been conserving them (and by extension they haven't evolved visually at all in that space of time), then I fear that person wouldn't have much of a grasp of evolution. It might be advantageous that we find them cute out of dumb luck on their part, but they haven't evolved to that end. So it could be argued alright, but dismissed as the ravings of a loony just as quickly

 

I'd argue that dumb luck is precisely what evolution is based on.

 

 

Exactly.

Evolution is the name of what you're looking at when you observe mixture of DNA over a long range of time. It is not "something of it's own" or some kind of natural law (it is rather the effect of the law). Survival of the fittest isn't survival of the most beneficial, it is those that survives long enough to spread their genes. The most beneficial people fought mammots and died. The "fittest" stayed in their caves and survived.

Edited August 9, 2013 by K-Carlsen

[legov]

 

 

Bloody animal conservation. Yes save animals that population has been decimated by humans. Blue Whale etc.

But Pandas are shit animals. They are near extinction because of how slowly they breed. How narrow their diet is.

Global Warming is killing X, y and z. Well boo hoo. I imagine the last ice age killed a f**k ton of animals too. As the thawing wiped out the Mammoth.

Tree huggers do my head in.

Can't you say the same for every other animal on Earth?

They're dying out because they don't have the means to cope with habitat destruction and over-hunting. Survival of the fittest.

I'm not saying we shouldn't save them, I'm saying you could level the same accusation at them.

Nope Blue Whales population was decimated by hunting by us. Their population is on the rise again. Pandas are just shit animals that should die out. The impact of humans on their environment has been of little effect in their inability to procreate, nor their specific diet.

Where we have hunted animals to near extinction we can put efforts to right that. But other animals that are endangered die to being shit deserve to die out.

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

Humans hunt. Animals either die or adapt.

 

Similarly, change in availability of bamboo. Pandas either die or adapt.

 

Change in condition. Animal adapts or dies.

 

Evolutionarily speaking, pandas are no different from other animals. The only difference lies in the source of the environmental change.

 

As others have mentioned, we humans are also part of the environment.

[Stevo985]

 

I'd argue that dumb luck is precisely what evolution is based on.

Yes true but it's not quite the same. That would only apply if we were letting the ugly pandas die off. We're not. We're trying to keep them all alive out of some kind of a; I dunno; moral conscience. It's like we feel responsible for every animal that goes extinct. Animals have been going extinct forever and the panda quite clearly wants to join their ranks.

 

It's not quite the same but I'd still argue that's part of evolution.

 

Evolution is survival. If this is how the Panda is surviving then that's part of their evolution.

They evolved from something. At some point they went from being not cute and cuddly to cute and cuddly.

 

It's blind luck, as you said. But it worked.

 

As others have said, the mere fact that they still exist is evidence for evolutionary success. Whether that's with our help or not. We're part of the environment.

 

Now, give it a couple of decades when they may well be extinct and things change.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Stevo985

[K-Carlsen]

...and when things change it creates a new environment for the remaining and circle continues.

[legov]

...and when things change it creates a new environment for the remaining and circle continues.

 

If the average tree-hugger acknowledged that, he wouldn't piss me off nearly as much.

[BOF]

Evolution is survival. If this is how the Panda is surviving then that's part of their evolution.

They evolved from something. At some point they went from being not cute and cuddly to cute and cuddly.

 

It's blind luck, as you said. But it worked.

 

For now

Yeah I think we're agreeing here really. Normally, animals adapt to survive in their natural habitat through genetic mutation which either benefits the 'mutant' or it doesn't - and he becomes the norm. The panda's evolution which happened completely previous to and completely independent of its desireability to humans, has now completely coincidentally benefitted it going forward. And as you say, that has now become a part of its survival. A survival where its dumb luck of evolutionary cuteness combined with its naturally occurring uselessness will probably consign it exclusively to 'surviving' in captivity.

[tonyh29]

 

I'd argue that dumb luck is precisely what evolution is based on.

Yes true but it's not quite the same. That would only apply if we were letting the ugly pandas die off. We're not. We're trying to keep them all alive out of some kind of a; I dunno; moral conscience. It's like we feel responsible for every animal that goes extinct. Animals have been going extinct forever and the panda quite clearly wants to join their ranks.

 

 

 

no idea why , but that line made me think of this ok it's a rabbit but it clearly wants to be extinct

[K-Carlsen]

 

...and when things change it creates a new environment for the remaining and circle continues.

 

If the average tree-hugger acknowledged that, he wouldn't piss me off nearly as much.

 

 

Yes, but as a species intelligent enough to witness evolution we are also the only ones that is able to create / foresee the next environment. That does not mean that we have to accept responsibility for it, but that we can take it if we want. And the way things are headed the next environment might not be too pleasant for ourselves. Meaning, it might be that it would be benifical to adapt to taking responsibiliity and to take it towards a more positive direction somewhere down the line, not just look at it.

Edited August 9, 2013 by K-Carlsen

[legov]

 

 

...and when things change it creates a new environment for the remaining and circle continues.

 

If the average tree-hugger acknowledged that, he wouldn't piss me off nearly as much.

 

 

Yes, but as a species intelligent enough to witness evolution we are also the only ones that is able to create / foresee the next environment. That does not mean that we have to accept responsibility for it, but that we can take it if we want. And the way things are headed the next environment might not be too pleasant for ourselves. Meaning, it might be a fact that it would be beneficial to adapt to somewhere down the line, not just look at.

 

 

Agreed 100%. But too often, that isn't the tree-hugger argument.

[K-Carlsen]

Ah, alright

 

Out of curiosity, not being too much involved with huggers of trees, what is their beliefs / arguments?

[legov]

In my experience, the argument bandied about most often (and the WWF is often guilty of this - someone save the pandas!) is the "wouldn't it be a pity if this animal disappeared forever" argument? Not really, in fact from a certain perspective it's exciting as it (theoretically) offers us to witness, in the future, new forms of life that will take the animal's place. Imo it's a glib, shallow argument.

 

If it has an effect on human lives however - declining fish stocks, desertification, etc etc etc goes on and on - that goes beyond the trivial, then yes I think it's a cause for concern.