You'd say this about the creatures we consider below us (like Panda's), but when the same situation applies to politics and people, you've indicated in the past that you'd rather us have a political system that coddles the weak and unfit among us. Ironic.
Somewhat related story in Slate yesterday... Conservation Triage-Say you have an ark. Which species do you save? By Michelle Nijhuis|Posted Thursday, Feb. 21, 2013, at 12:08 PM Let’s say you’re in charge of picking the survivors. You’ve got a boat—oh, let’s just make it an ark, shall we?—and you can load it with any kind of animals you like. The species you coax on board will probably make it through climate change. The ones you leave on shore probably won’t. While you can choose your passengers, there are limits: Put too many critters in the ark and the whole thing, you included, will start to sink. Which species will you save? Will you pick the rarest, the largest, or the smallest? The strongest or the weakest? The most beautiful … or just the tastiest? The thing is, most of us are already making these choices, and making them all the time. Not that we think much about it. But every time we decide what to buy, where to build, or who to put in charge of spending our tax dollars, we’re indirectly deciding which species deserve our consideration and which species can do without it. It’s easy to ignore this reality and pretend that we can and will protect everything. The U.S. Endangered Species Act, which turns 40 this year and is still considered by many to be the most powerful environmental law in the world, made essentially all species eligible for federal protection. But federal, state, and private dollars are finite, and in recent years, it’s become all too obvious that the demands of conservation are functionally infinite. You’ve heard the news: Species of all sizes and descriptions are contending with habitat destruction, pollution, and the accelerating and far-reaching pressures of climate change. Some species will adapt. Those that aren’t picky about their habitats or diets, such as crows and coyotes, stand the best chance. But species that require particular habitats, such as polar bears, or a single type of prey or pollinator aren’t likely to make it, at least not without huge investments of time and money. So in recent years, some conservationists and scientists have been pushing for a more explicit, systematic approach to conservation decisions—a kind of triage system in which a rational set of criteria is used to allocate limited resources. Environmentalists have long been wary of any sort of triage approach to species conservation, and understandably so. Explicit triage is, in a way, an admission of failure, an acknowledgement that we’ve fallen short of the Endangered Species Act’s goal of protecting all species without prejudice. And any such acknowledgement could well be exploited by traditional foes of conservation. But some environmentalists now say the status quo is an even riskier path. “The way we’re doing it right now in the United States is the worst of all possible choices,” says Tim Male, a vice president at Defenders of Wildlife. “It essentially reflects completely ad hoc prioritization.” Politically controversial species attract more funding, as do those with symbolic value (think bald eagles) or furry, expressive faces (think lemurs and baby seals). “We live in a world of unconscious triage,” says Male. So how to make these life-and-death decisions? Scientists have proposed several approaches. One is to prioritize species that play some sort of essential role in their ecosystem—top predators such as wolves, for instance. Another is to focus on protecting extremely rare and unusual species, with the hope of preserving a diverse genetic pool and with it the ability of species to evolve and adapt to new conditions. The EDGE of Existence program, run by the Zoological Society of London, takes the latter approach. It has a fascinating collection of weird and wonderful species in its portfolio, ranging from the Chinese giant salamander to the two-humped Bactrian camel. Other organizations have combined approaches: The Wildlife Conservation Society, in a recent analysis of its priorities, gave higher rankings to threatened species with large body sizes and home ranges, reasoning that the conservation of such species would serve as an “umbrella” for many others. It also prioritized genetic distinctiveness and allowed experts to consider subjective qualities such as charisma—because cuteness, like it or not, helps bring in funding for further species protection. One of the most sophisticated strategies in use today is being developed by Hugh Possingham and his colleagues at the University of Queensland in Australia. Through Possingham’s “resource-allocation” process, wildlife managers weigh the costs, benefits, and likelihood of success of conservation for each threatened species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation used the process to analyze its conservation work on more than 700 declining native species. It discovered that by choosing strategically, it could preserve nearly half again as many species as it was currently protecting with the same amount of funding. Sounds great, right? But spare a thought for the species at the bottom of the list. New Zealand assigned a relatively low priority to the rockhopper penguin, which has declined precipitously in recent years due to climate-change-driven shifts in its food supply. While the rockhopper penguin could certainly benefit from national protection efforts, New Zealand managers decided that any effective measures would be so time-consuming and expensive that they would drain resources from other, more promising conservation projects. It’s not exactly a death sentence for the penguin: There are rockhoppers outside New Zealand, and officials hope all low-priority species will receive additional public funds, or else support from private groups or international efforts. But the rockhopper’s low rating is hardly a vote of confidence. One reason these decisions are so difficult is that there’s no way to know when a seemingly lost cause is really lost. After all, the population of California condors had dwindled to just 22 before they were captured, bred in captivity, and successfully returned to the wild. The rockhopper penguin might well be doomed. Then again, it might be another California condor, just waiting for the right kind of rescue. “We can prevent extinction; we’ve demonstrated that,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has written extensively about environmental issues. But “knowing that an extinction was something we could have stopped and chose not to—I think that’s where people kind of gulp and don’t want to go down that road.” That’s the point of triage systems, though. They force professionals—and, indirectly, voters and taxpayers—to make difficult, emotional decisions, but give them some reassurance that those decisions are for the greater good. It may be easier to decide by default, but in the end, the patients lose. So perhaps it’s time to make your pick. Who gets to board your ark?
Survival of the fittest applies to Panda's and not Humans? In my opinion, if a Human being cannot support themselves in their environment, they shouldn't pass along the traits that have made them and their ancestors weak and unfit at adapting to the way of nature.
No no no lol - let me explain it to you. Not all humans get into heaven, by my calculations* less then 1/3 go to their respective religion's heaven or afterlife because of the strict entrance rules. All dogs go to heaven. Fact. Pandas? They are cute and don't seem to want to kill everyone because of differences so it goes: Dogs > Pandas > most everything else > Humans.
Yet you have the money and time to loiter around on the internet. How about donate both of those to those less fortunate? Your posts reek of lunacy.
You are the portrait of internet racism and race baiting. Log off and go hang out with your frien---err pets.
Its ok, I guess its not possible to disagree without resorting to insults. I understand where your coming from, if your not donating you have no right to complain. Its not about whether your donating or not, this issue is about what's right and what's wrong. BTW everybody donates,when you pay any kind of tax that's a donation. When the government misappropriates our tax dollars we all have a right to complain. The corruption is obvious all of these so called charitable organizations have ceos making millions of dollars. Do you really think it should take millions upon millions of dollars to make a legitimate effort to save the panda. Its not about saving the panda its about making money. All of these charities in the USA who are supporting the panda are actually supporting the Chinese government. Remember the Chinese are in charge of panda conservation. Zoos can rent a panda for 1 million a year from the Chinese. Do you really think the Chinese use all of that money for the panda$? How much of the charitable donations never go into anything but the ceos pockets?
So basically you want to save humans ahead of animals but you don't do anything to work toward that at all. Okay.
Lol how do you know what I do? Instead of debating the issue you rather debate about my personal decisions. Your assuming a lot without knowing anything. OK I will stoop down to your level. I assume that your a conservative, I assume that your most likely a racist, do I have any proof no I do not but if I could bet money on it I would. Your really off my friend. I make an entire post about where the money is really going but instead of debating that you rather personally attack me. I guess it made too much sense.
Great observation. why don't you pay attention to the message and not the grammar and please don't give me the bs that the grammar is so bad that you can't understand the message. Hears another observation you are not a professional editor and even if you were who cares this is clutch fans not the chronicle. This is supposed too be about debate and discussion not bashing people and their grammar. BTW I would rather have piss poor grammar then be a piss poor human being.
A few things: 1. I did work as a professional editor for The Denver Post. 2. Currently, I'm a teacher. It's part of my job to notice grammatical errors. I think it's natural for me to make sure all of my middle school "kids" (and adults, possiblly) have the ability to write and communicate appropriately and accurately. 3. I wasn't bashing you, hence the smiley face. It was more of a joke. 4. To imply that I am a "piss poor human being" is a bit over the line, right? 5. In the future, if you post in the D&D, try to communicate without so much bitterness. Even in this thread, your posts are more recognizable for your emotions. I would imagine that you would want your content and ideas to receive more focus. Good day, kiddo.
A smiley face cannot hide your condescending tone. It was more of a joke? Lol just he honest your goal was to be a d bag and you pulled it off. Then to top it off you end it with kiddo. I'm 30 years old with a college degree but you feel the need to call me kiddo. People like you are making me question my decision to join clutch fans. Please do not respond to this unless you have something to say about my original post. I am not attempting to write for the Denver post, I'm just trying to draw attention to the obvious corruption going on in many charitable organizations. What's really important is the fact that many hardworking people are donating money that they think is for one purpose but the money is going somewhere else. Who wouldn't be bitter the whole world is getting screwed over with the top 1 percent controlling more of the money then ever. So many people are getting caught up with bs. All of the republican vs democrat vs tea party its all garbage. The truth is its the people vs the government. The government has never had our best interests in mind. If anybody here really believes that Republicans or democrats give a damn about any of us their sadly mistaken.
Because you admitted it yourself by making a big deal about financial difficulties. Cancel that internet service and turn that monthly fee into some food and cloth for African children.
All of nature's creatures are worth saving, except for Fire Ants, Mosquitoes, and Grackles. If Hell exists, I wish they would all simply go there and leave us alone.
Nah, only the extremists in the Republican Party bother me. And the extremists? They can host a big party on a deserted island with all the soon to be in hell Grackles, Fire Ants, and Mosquitoes. Hopefully, they will have all consuming fun.
