![[challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif "Challenge Entry: Animal Suicides"){kind=small}
So long, and thanks for all the bamboo...
From the Animal Suicides challenge. See all 297 entries (closed)
(, Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:38, archived)
Great picture, I think Pandas really are suicidalCarnivores who try to exist on grass almost void of nutrients with ingrowing genitals and zero libido and rare, cute, shaggy and strange enough to be gold dust to hunters... they WANT to die, humanity just won't let them.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:40,
archived)
^thisThey're a genetic dead-end.
They are, however, fluffycute, thus they must be saved.
(They are, however, fluffycute, thus they must be saved.
Tribs 🦇 ↓ dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ↓🦇,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:43,
archived)
the ones with ingrowing genitals are girl pandas.surely you know the difference?
(
mutster101 fell over,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:44,
archived)
I had an argument with some spackoid who suggested letting species die out was naturalwhich in all honesty in the Pandas' case, is really a foregone conclusion since they are so hopeless, but what about the plankton algae floating around in the ocean that absorbs carbon monoxide
If we let that 'die out' the entire planet would be an inferno overnight, and no more life
Whilst a seemingly lost case, the Giant Panda is a challenge for humanity as our obvious role as custodians of the planet and it's wildlife. If we give up on them, we might as well apply the same argument to tigers, and so and so, until we're left with nothing more than a few annoying insects
I would not be able to look my grandchildren in the eye
(If we let that 'die out' the entire planet would be an inferno overnight, and no more life
Whilst a seemingly lost case, the Giant Panda is a challenge for humanity as our obvious role as custodians of the planet and it's wildlife. If we give up on them, we might as well apply the same argument to tigers, and so and so, until we're left with nothing more than a few annoying insects
I would not be able to look my grandchildren in the eye
Jahled Three shades of black,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:55,
archived)
a giant inferno you say,anyone for another slice of grilled blue whale?
( god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:58,
archived)
I'd like a sliceIts them thats eating all the algae
(
CanonCaliber A big bore,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:23,
archived)
Because they are really short? LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:58,
archived)
Plankton and algae aren't exactly endangered, are they?And frankly it's going to happen one day, we can't keep entropy at bay forever. Why not admit we're not the masters of our destiny and just live without having to drag along species that would have died otherwise. Besides, I fully support introducing more carbon absorbing life forms in the sea and that'll fuck a whole load of other species. Species are gonna die out no matter what we do so why not just exersize the same self-interest in survival as a species that they do?
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:02,
archived)
This.If you're pro "lets save the endangered", meet my T-rex and Raptors :)
Then tell me you want them roaming our country hillsides. :P
(Then tell me you want them roaming our country hillsides. :P
xihpete A neutrino walks straight through a bar, with v>c.,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:04,
archived)
Algae may have the word lost on me in the moment, so ta :)but human incursion and effect on the natural world is quite frankly undeniable, even putting aside any argument concerning global warming. So for the majority of endangered wildlife our effect on it's natural environment is almost chiefly the cause of why it is endangered, including the fluffy Panda. Just because the female is only fertile for about four days a year wouldn't really be a problem if there wasn't such an element as the rapid industrial growth and population of China.
The fact the world has started to take conservation seriously, even with such 'lost causes' shows some optimistic maturity, though I reckon
(The fact the world has started to take conservation seriously, even with such 'lost causes' shows some optimistic maturity, though I reckon
Jahled Three shades of black,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:10,
archived)
Which world is that?the world i'm in certain doesn't seem to be taking it seriously.
( mutster101 fell over,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:14,
archived)
Quite a lot of species have died out in the past,a number of those extinctions happening before there were any humans. The majority of them, I believe. Some species are just not very good at being alive, e.g. irish elk.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:21,
archived)
Doesn't hurt to try and preserve what's left though, does it?The Regional Red List report of critical and extinct species is ever grim reading by every year, there is simply nothing natural about most extinctions these days; it's down to us as humans
( Jahled Three shades of black,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:28,
archived)
That you know of.For all you know the species we're keeping alive are suppressing the emergence of others that may later become the dominant ones. And no, most extinctions are not down to mankind. Most extinctions are on micro-organisms. Where do they come in to your plan or is it out of sight out of mind for you? And equally how can you tell me that the next dominant species' on earth will evolve from single-celled organisms?
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:36,
archived)
the point is we should do our best to minimise our impact on the environmentbefore gaia bites us in the ass*
*or donkey, etc
(*or donkey, etc
mutster101 fell over,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:45,
archived)
My partner really would get upset if Gaia did thatand I doubt that'd end well for Gaia.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:52,
archived)
Emmmicro-organisms. Where do they come in to your plan or is it out of sight out of mind for you? Entirely not, but out of what i'm qualified to apparently debate about
I'm a graphic designer, I make conservation shit loads of money from restoring old photographs which we sell online and to the BBC and National Geographic, and looking after our library of scientific knowldege, which it would be my pleasure to show you around if you're ever near London Zoo
We got a £1000 for this hour or two's worth of shopping from a slide, from National Geographic:
And that's that, cool little chat though :)
(I'm a graphic designer, I make conservation shit loads of money from restoring old photographs which we sell online and to the BBC and National Geographic, and looking after our library of scientific knowldege, which it would be my pleasure to show you around if you're ever near London Zoo
We got a £1000 for this hour or two's worth of shopping from a slide, from National Geographic:
And that's that, cool little chat though :)
Jahled Three shades of black,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:56,
archived)
I may just take you up on that offerand thanks, it's always fun to discuss these things. Sounds like an interesting job too.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:01,
archived)
Last b3tan who did ended up with a Meerkat on her head:)
( Jahled Three shades of black,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:07,
archived)
Well crap, now my sense of cute is taking over...*Hopes nobody taxes him on the subject in case he caves to fluff*
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:11,
archived)
Mankind's impact on the world is at best transitoryWe weren't the first species on this rock and we sure as hell won't be the last. And no, that's far from being the only genetic flaw with the Panda. Besides, you're totally ignoring the fact it's the deaths of existing species that allows new ones to thrive.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:29,
archived)
I bet our species is among the last, actually.I bet you one pound, plus interest, payable at the death of the sun.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:46,
archived)
As a recovering marine biologist......I have to say it's a bit more complex than just "introducing more carbon absorbing life forms". As you said, it'll fuck a whole load of other species.
The thing most people seem to miss is that ecosystems are incredibly, incredibly complicated - especially when you're looking at the carbon cycle, which affects global climate and has wide reaching effects on other ecosystems.
The point of conservation shouldn't be that pandas are cute, but that's an incredibly useful tool in opening people's eyes to the wider problems. Sure, the world's not going to stop turning if we let them all die out, but with other - less photogenic - species, they have complex relationships with other predator and prey species which could mean the collapse of entire ecosystems, which can have devastating effects on people too. Just look at what happens in rain forests when the soil is leached out after a couple of years and becomes completely barren. Leave areas of ocean without fish to eat plankton, or introduce more carbon-absorbing life, and you end up with a similar thing - the plankton leach out all the other nutrients, die, sink, and remove nutrients from the surface. Permanently. Then you don't get *any* carbon-absorbing plankton in the top layers of the ocean.
Oh, and only the top few meters of the ocean are any good for phytoplankton anyway. It's not an answer. Allowing the world to keep the complex balance it always had - of predator and prey, plants and grazers - is the simplest way of ensuring that the planet has a far more stable cycle of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and so on, and has a more predictable and stable climate.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:46,
archived)
The thing most people seem to miss is that ecosystems are incredibly, incredibly complicated - especially when you're looking at the carbon cycle, which affects global climate and has wide reaching effects on other ecosystems.
The point of conservation shouldn't be that pandas are cute, but that's an incredibly useful tool in opening people's eyes to the wider problems. Sure, the world's not going to stop turning if we let them all die out, but with other - less photogenic - species, they have complex relationships with other predator and prey species which could mean the collapse of entire ecosystems, which can have devastating effects on people too. Just look at what happens in rain forests when the soil is leached out after a couple of years and becomes completely barren. Leave areas of ocean without fish to eat plankton, or introduce more carbon-absorbing life, and you end up with a similar thing - the plankton leach out all the other nutrients, die, sink, and remove nutrients from the surface. Permanently. Then you don't get *any* carbon-absorbing plankton in the top layers of the ocean.
Oh, and only the top few meters of the ocean are any good for phytoplankton anyway. It's not an answer. Allowing the world to keep the complex balance it always had - of predator and prey, plants and grazers - is the simplest way of ensuring that the planet has a far more stable cycle of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and so on, and has a more predictable and stable climate.
Interesting, thanks for the insight.I still don't see that Pandas and other such species help us but that's certainly informative.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:50,
archived)
YAY! *waves pitchfork*we need more people like you
( mutster101 fell over,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:51,
archived)
"tool".I hate pandas precisely for that reason, because I feel manipulated by people with an agenda of preserving small slimy kinds of life disingenuously telling me I should save the environment by reason of pandas being fluffy. It makes no sense, and lying is not a good marketing tool.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:54,
archived)
It's not lyingIt's opening people's eyes to a wider problem. Sure, some people want to give a fiver to stop teh fluff dying, and good for them. It's their fiver. But for people like me, that fluff when I was 5 opened my eyes to a far wider issue, which I studied over the years and now understand a little better.
Pandas *do* need saving. Like I said before, the impact of them dying out isn't going to be huge - except in terms of attitudes. Thinking "oh, it's just a panda" can very easily be extended to "oh, it's just a type of fish" to "oh, it's just an algal species..." - and humans don't have the right to do that, or the ability to get back from that kind of mistake.
Save the fluffy black and white cheerleader, save the world... kind of.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:02,
archived)
Pandas *do* need saving. Like I said before, the impact of them dying out isn't going to be huge - except in terms of attitudes. Thinking "oh, it's just a panda" can very easily be extended to "oh, it's just a type of fish" to "oh, it's just an algal species..." - and humans don't have the right to do that, or the ability to get back from that kind of mistake.
Save the fluffy black and white cheerleader, save the world... kind of.
Oh, I see, it's the "humans don't have the right to meddle with nature" attitude.*sigh*
Well, we do. So there.
Either it's just a type of fish - which in some cases it is - or else it matters to us. We don't need a religion of preserving fauna on principle.
Incidentally I have a marine biologist friend who would agree with me, just in case you're about to pull rank.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:09,
archived)
Well, we do. So there.
Either it's just a type of fish - which in some cases it is - or else it matters to us. We don't need a religion of preserving fauna on principle.
Incidentally I have a marine biologist friend who would agree with me, just in case you're about to pull rank.
OK then.You pick out the important species and get back to us.
That's exactly the problem - modelling marine systems is nigh on impossible with any degree of accuracy, and those models usually just take into account one species of phytoplankton or copepod and ignore their predators. How does anyone know what species are important and which aren't?
It's not about a "religion of preserving fauna on principle". Yes, in natural systems, things die out. Yes, the world can get back to a stable system eventually, and no, in the long term it doesn't really matter one jot. But in the short to medium term it *does* matter to us, and it's about recognising that in many cases we just don't know how the extinction of a species will have an effect on the world, or when.
Besides, "having the power to" does not equate to "having the right to".
Anyway, I gave up all that biologising a long time ago. I'm going back to lurking.
<crafty edit>Not going to pull rank: I'm quite enjoying this little debate. I agree with some of what you're saying; there are some species out there which are "just species" and utterly unimportant. I suppose I'm of the "we have to try..." camp rather than the "we're doomed anyway so we may as well enjoy the cod". But I can see your point of view. There is a faction of the conservation camp which is coming at things from the wrong angle completely and I can see how it winds people up.</crafty edit>
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:18,
archived)
That's exactly the problem - modelling marine systems is nigh on impossible with any degree of accuracy, and those models usually just take into account one species of phytoplankton or copepod and ignore their predators. How does anyone know what species are important and which aren't?
It's not about a "religion of preserving fauna on principle". Yes, in natural systems, things die out. Yes, the world can get back to a stable system eventually, and no, in the long term it doesn't really matter one jot. But in the short to medium term it *does* matter to us, and it's about recognising that in many cases we just don't know how the extinction of a species will have an effect on the world, or when.
Besides, "having the power to" does not equate to "having the right to".
Anyway, I gave up all that biologising a long time ago. I'm going back to lurking.
<crafty edit>Not going to pull rank: I'm quite enjoying this little debate. I agree with some of what you're saying; there are some species out there which are "just species" and utterly unimportant. I suppose I'm of the "we have to try..." camp rather than the "we're doomed anyway so we may as well enjoy the cod". But I can see your point of view. There is a faction of the conservation camp which is coming at things from the wrong angle completely and I can see how it winds people up.</crafty edit>
Do the damage first, use that as the means of working out what needs fixing, fix it afterwards.Otherwise you have got a principle of inaction, and that's what environmentalism is, the principle of never trying anything in case it goes wrong (which in practical reality causes people to do the things anyway, while environmentalists complain about it and try to bring in laws to punish people for it).
Edit: mmm, lovely cod. :) We should certainly try and preserve them somehow. Actually overfishing is fairly straightforward since it's not in the fishermen's interests to kill off a species of fish.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:25,
archived)
Edit: mmm, lovely cod. :) We should certainly try and preserve them somehow. Actually overfishing is fairly straightforward since it's not in the fishermen's interests to kill off a species of fish.
Arghh...You keep drawing me back in with interesting points to respond to. I really must stop and do some work.
Ok... it's a good idea. It really is, and I know how insincere anything you say on the internet can sound. But... the problem comes when we cause a problem we can't get back from. How do you fix the problem of wiping out an entire species, if we find that upsets the balance too much? That's why seed banks, zoos etc do have an important role to play.
I'd argue that environmentalism is exactly what you're saying - it's fixing the damage caused since the industrial revolution and (in some cases) caused *before* the industrial revolution. Yes, again, there are those environmentalists who just want to ban anyone from flying... but there are also activists who want us to adapt to change which now seems inevitable. While it's taking governments some time to catch up to these ideas, they finally are.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 22:34,
archived)
Ok... it's a good idea. It really is, and I know how insincere anything you say on the internet can sound. But... the problem comes when we cause a problem we can't get back from. How do you fix the problem of wiping out an entire species, if we find that upsets the balance too much? That's why seed banks, zoos etc do have an important role to play.
I'd argue that environmentalism is exactly what you're saying - it's fixing the damage caused since the industrial revolution and (in some cases) caused *before* the industrial revolution. Yes, again, there are those environmentalists who just want to ban anyone from flying... but there are also activists who want us to adapt to change which now seems inevitable. While it's taking governments some time to catch up to these ideas, they finally are.
Seed banks and zoos are excellent, yes.The solution to the event of ecosystems becoming crippled enough to cause problems to humans (problems of the material kind they actually care about) is ... well, when their ingenuity is spurred on by unproductive farming land or a perceptibly runaway greenhouse effect or whatever it is, some completely unexpected and fascinating solutions will become apparent. In the meantime, stop telling people to preserve things like tiger-filled jungles when nobody is concerned enough to want to pay for the jungle to be preserved. Somebody has to live near those tigers, without a good solid farm job to go to. This kind of regulation puts a brake (but only a brake) on environmental damage, and also puts a brake on creativity in general which would come in useful later in fixing the material damage, if any.
Anyway, yes, that was fun, thank you.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 23:09,
archived)
Anyway, yes, that was fun, thank you.
Nature doesn't have a plan, so it's not important what's natural, as it may well be stupid.Tigers are not part of a plan. A lack of tigers is not an a failure to stick to the plan. Tigers are inconvenient and will bite you (although they look good in zoos, except the really inbred tigers, which look like mongs). People in general are not under any obligation to have tigers or pandas, and anybody who wants to keep any had better sort it out themselves. Having lots of plankton is a useful thing though, yes.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:16,
archived)
Well said...ishWe don't need to preserve existing species, we need to encourage ones that will influence our survival chances and too bad for the rest. I tire of this division between natural and artificial. It's human self-importance at its worst because it's human self-importance in denial.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:30,
archived)
What does that mean? (to me)
Koba http://sexycooladventures.blogspot.com/,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:42,
archived)
TJ -`Just made one too!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahay!
this is rather splendid. god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:47,
archived)
That may be the most inventive way of avoiding seams ever*Claps*
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:51,
archived)
that is outstandingly harsh. god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:55,
archived)
I actually genuinely meant itIt's clever because it saves effort and looks good.
(,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:06,
archived)
saves effort!!!!!?????i'll fetch my ladder.
( god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:07,
archived)
256-COLOUR BITMAPS, BABY
Rapitinui get in the cage and I'll give you a treat,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:05,
archived)
hahahaI thought he had a massive hand and was giving a thumbs up
*needs glasses*
(*needs glasses*
Fishcat Difficult difficult lemon difficult.,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 21:10,
archived)
No need for that.Just leave it, you sick fucker.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:43,
archived)
Oh? I'm sick am I? Well then, you're.... you're...Doesn't your hair look lovely?
( mutster101 fell over,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:46,
archived)
But how did he get to France? Mstandot I suppose I should post more often.,
Tue 4 Dec 2007, 20:47,
archived)