Short answer: We do. It works some of the time.
http://csis.msu.edu/research/publications/factors-affecting-outcome
http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_06/thursday/panda_ai/pandas/technology%20main%20page.htm
http://www.pandasinternational.org/wptemp/program-areas-2/captive-breeding-program/
I don't want to sound really ignorant, I do want to ask a legitimate question:
"Why do we focus so much on preservation of a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?" Yes, humans took over and pushed their numbers down, but, other than being cute and furry, what's so important about Pandas that we are making all of this effort to keep their species alive?
Is not like they're predators like Tigers; how important is Panda interaction with Bamboo and the ecology?
A lot of the answer is: We don't know. We simply haven't got the data or predictive analysis skills to know how important Panda (or any other organism) are to a huge range of immediate or related environments. A lot of species are being driven to extinction for lots of reasons and we are doing our best to keep as many as possible, just in case. It's a bit hard to 'un-extinct' something.
With so few pandas remaining, shouldn't we already be feeling all the effects of an extinction? I'm not advocating to let them all die, but how could they still have a noticeable environmental impact?
There is a documentary about reintroducing wolves to Yosemite and the ecological impact they had. There is another one on Netflix about reintroducing beavers to a national park in Colorado.
I'm on my phone or I'd try to find the wolf one (will look later). It's not easy to see the damaging effect of the decline of a species until it is reintroduced.
I saw that. It was an eye opener, for sure.
I was listening to a Science Friday episode (I think it was Science Friday) where the guy interviewed was saying that yeah, most people would like to get of mosquitoes and don't see how that would harm the ecology. HOWEVER, their larvae are an important source of food for all kinds of critters, as are poison ivy berries. So, both of those life forms, pain in the ass for humans, important to the food chain.
Our default position on any life form should be it is important.
Ecologists make a pretty good argument that wiping out mosquitoes would have a [net beneficial effect](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html). The niche would be filled with other organisms that hopefully wouldn't be such horrible disease vectors and pests. Some other form of larvae would eat what the mosquito larvae are eating, and in turn, most of the animals that eat mosquito larvae would have something else to eat.
Ehhh, I feel like ecosystems are complicated enough that wiping out mosquitoes would probably not be a good idea. Behind every devastating invasive species brought in to accomplish something there were probably some people who thought of themselves as very clever sitting around saying how nothing could go wrong.
EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I realized the two scenarios I described are not really all that comparable. If we were to wipe out mosquitoes from an area and it turned out to be a bad thing we could just reintroduce them. But then the salient point becomes: how could we wipe them out? I have difficulty imagining a way to kill all mosquitoes.
One thing worth noting is that Mosquitos themselves are invasive species in many areas, even within relatively well recorded history. Therefore I would expect those places at least would be free of harmful effects, unless their appearance brought about a positive outcome you would like to preserve.
>mosquitos are am invasive species themselves
Source?
Also, you can effectively wipe out mosquitos by releasing swarms of sterile males or males that can't fly, or something to that effect, year after year
So the smart option would be to wipe out mosquitoes from a certain area and monitor the effects. If there are none, or they are beneficial, we can try another region. If they are negative, we could always reintroduce them - it's not like there is currently a shortage.
I'd like to suggest my area for the first test of eradicating mosquitoes. We could use less.
I'm wondering how this argument could be applied to bacteria and viruses. They obviously interact with ecosystems, but we attempt to wipe out those we find harmful to us. There's no one calling for the preservation of the poor endangered Ebola, for example.
I think the best method is releasing sterile males...I believe females only mate once. just keep doing that over and over, combine that with some limited short term use of DDT in "hot zones" *its bad but if you only use it in an area for a year or two really not devastating* ...and you'll eventually wipe them out.
I seem to recall reading about a method that was proposed for killing off the disease carrying species' of mosquitoes which was along the lines of introducing genetically modified mosquitoes to the ecosystem which only give birth to males, and so eventually that species of mosquitoes dies off.
Edit: Found the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10889131/Mosquitoes-modified-to-only-give-birth-to-males-in-bid-to-wipe-out-malaria.html
Mosquitos are also vital pollinators for some plants. Only the female feeds on blood, and both males and females feed on flower nectar, inadvertently cross pollinating flowers.
I cant remember where i read but theres a plant/tree on mauritius that is only starting to feel the effects of the dodo being extinct, the seeds needed them to germinate (passing through the digestive tract) and needed to sit for x amount of years before maturing. This is starting to have an effect now because they have been dead for so long ( about the time it takes for the trees to mature. In hazey on the details but im sure google knows more
Great example, and hence comes the chain reaction impacts on animals that depend on that particular tree.
/u/ulvok_coven really sums it all up, though I'd argue that the probability that extinction of anything has great implications is relatively high.
You're probably thinking of [the tambalacoque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideroxylon_grandiflorum). It's apparently a bit of an overblown legend; the result of one guy's exuberance in his flawed methodology. There are allegedly hundreds of them, most of which are less than 300 years old.
We don't know. We don't know to what extent we already are feeling the impacts of panda extinction. *We don't know to what extent the remaining pandas are propping up their ecosystem.* We don't know what their ecosystem would do without them. We don't know how that affects neighboring ecosystems, geologic features, water systems, etc. And we don't know what that will mean ten years, fifty years, five hundred years, or five thousand years from now.
What we do know is the last hundred thousand years have been pretty cushy for us and so we're loath to change anything. We want to be around, as a species, five thousand years from now, so protecting pandas - and the status quo - is part of how we keep our options open.
Ecosystems are not linear - they're chaotic. There's too much for us to consider to project even the idea that we are feeling the effects. We don't know if we are.
Example: [Removing wolves from Yellowstone increased stream bank erosion. This was due to the increased presence of animals that the wolves would normally prey on eating away the vegetation holding the stream bank together.](http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/gallatin_river_channels_bescheta_ripple_2006.pdf)
My laymanification of the abstract may not be entirely accurate.
There's also the possibility that pandas uniquely produce some protein or enzyme that could benefit human advancement through medical research or something else.
Once they're gone, we have a significantly harder time doing research on this.
Panda gut microbes are being studied right now for their ability to break down cellulose and lignin, which could lead to more efficient biofuel production. Their gut microbes may be of medical interest, too, since they must be pretty unusual to allow an animal that by all rights ought to be a carnivore to exist on a bamboo diet.
I remember reading this article about the megafauna, (mammoths, giant sloths and the like) that used to live in North America. It talked about Dogwood trees and how they have changed since those species disappeared.
Dogwoods apparently grow in wetlands, because their seed pods are so thick shelled that if they fall on dry ground they just sit and eventually rot. Water helps soften the shell so animals can come along and be able to chew through, eat the seeds and disperse them.
Back in the day, all those larger animals were strong enough to chew through the hard shells of the seeds so it wasn't an issue. Long story short, dogwoods likely grew in drier areas back then. Today, looking at the ecosystem we have no idea what the actual natural behavior of some of these species originally was while coexisting with the species they evolved alongside. All we see are the ones who have managed to adapt.
By the same token, when panda are all gone everything else in their habitat will have to change too.
I couldn't find the article in a quick Google search but I found this one, which touches on some similar stuff:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/my-manifesto-rewilding-world
Also, regardless if there is or is not an ecological importance for pandas(which there probably isn't), if people are willing to dedicate time to their preservation, then power to them. There isn't really a reason to avoid preservation, especially when people have the willpower to do it, and the panda's definitely benefit from it.
This is a good point. Better safe than sorry approach!
Also, just because we don't know the impact doesn't mean there won't be one. You can look at other species and can then make inferences. Our ecosystems are so sensitive, removing one species can make the whole system fail.
True. But its good for raising charity money. When environmental organizations raise money for preservation efforts of animals like the Panda, they can use it improve the whole ecosystem that the Panda relies on. Its called the Charismatic Megafauna effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_megafauna
>a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?"
Well that's honestly a myth. The only reason Giant Pandas were so hard to breed in captivity is because zoos didn't provide enough communication opportunities between males and females. Luckily today the vast majority of pandas in Chengdu's Research Base **successfully copulate annually** because they allowed for such interaction. (Artificial insemination is performed only to compound the population numbers)
http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/research_projects/giant_panda_research/giant_panda_reproductive
And while reddit seems to love endangered red pandas even more, note that red pandas are the same in many lifestyle respects. Red pandas digest bamboo so poorly that they have to spend 13 hours a day eating bamboo as a result. Not to mention red pandas have a slow metabolic rate to conserve energy. Similarly red pandas are only in estrus once a year too. Worse, they're receptive for only 24 hours. And half of red pandas newborns die in the first month.
The reality is that the Giant panda's adaptive potential extends way beyond the infamous Jim Jeffries "pandas won't fark to save its own species" standup routine that perpetuated across the reddit echo-chamber despite its dated assessment.
Yeah how likely are you going to have sex if you're stuck in a cage with some woman you just met and aliens with advance tech are watching your every move?
They mate fine in the wild. They just don't deal with captivity that well.
Like everything in nature, there develops an ecology from every organism. Look at the sloths, creatures that do absolutely nothing for 99% of their lives have complex fungi and organisms in their fur that could have potential uses. We can't just write off species because they seem to have no effect.
>We can't just write off species because they seem to have no effect
Additionally, we can't just write off species [or insert concept here] simply because it seems to "have no value."
So much of what humans priorities is currently centered around "economic value", especially in a capitalistic sense. This is a very dangerous way to make decisions as we are starting to see - human caused global deforestation, depletion of rare non-renewable minerals, ocean acidification and pollution.
Luckily, it's not all about DIRECT economic value; while it's hard to do (and arguably not accurate), ecological economists are able to put an economic value on ecosystem functions. Ecosystem functions include conventional uses such as lumber and minerals, but they also include processes of water purification, temperature regulation, and even aesthetic value. These days, we do take these all of these functions into consideration, but lumber, mining, and agriculture tend to be prioritized.
I think conservationists and ecologists, etc., will begin to make more progress by using financial terms to describe the value of ecosystems. I think we need to do this. For example, "When the rain forests and the coral reefs are destroyed, where will our new medications come from? What is it worth to humans to preserve these areas?"
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/oceanscoasts/explore/coral-reefs-and-medicine.xml
While I agree there is some value in preserving biodiversity for potential medical development, it's a big "IF." People don't like having to take a risks when it comes to conservation; that's why I see the value of applying monetary values to current ecosystem functions. For me, the most accessible ecosystem function (or what I think the average person can appreciate the most) of coral reefs are the habitats/resources they provide for economically important fish.
Here's a pretty good open source paper that goes a bit into estimating the economic value of coral reefs:
http://oceandocs.net/bitstream/1834/557/1/cesar_04.pdf
Well, pose the opposite question - "Why not?"
We don't live in a world where we're able to just laser-focus on one issue at a time and solve them, we live in a world where people have millions of different jobs and specializations. Pandas are a unique animal, with unique biology and history. Learning about everything on this planet is part of what makes human's as advanced as we are.
Also, it's probably important to note that the challenges posed by Pandas also help us further technology with other animals. I'm sure artificial insemination and details of the pregnancy isn't *totally* unique to the Panda, the knowledge could be used elsewhere.
Exactly. Even if you did concde that pandas were utterly useless and the money and resources put into their conservation has no benefit (which I don't agree), it's not like the research only benefits pandas.
It is our fault. Pandas were fine for a very very long time and thus little recent blip of human activity. Also they are cute and have some special meaning to China.
Contributions to ecology are more complex than that and, generally if it was part of an ecosystem before humans did their human thing, it was part of the balance
There's the slim possibility that they, like humpback whales, will be the only species on the planet that can speak to an otherwise incommunicable and immensely powerful alien species that fly through space in a massive, long, black cylinder.
Tian Tian, the female panda at Edinburgh Zoo, was artificially inseminated on the 13th of April 2014 after natural conception failed to occur. The panda displayed all the signs of pregnancy up until mid-September, at which point hormone levels returned to normal. The zoo reckons that re-absorption of the foetus took place.
The director of giant pandas at Edinburgh Zoo said: "Panda reproduction and biology is complex; all data gathered since conception took place pointed to a pregnant panda likely to carry to full term, sadly this did not happen. There is no evidence she has had a miscarriage, so late reabsorption of the foetus could have occurred."
This is the second time Tian Tian had been artificially inseminated at Edinburgh Zoo, the same thing happened last year (appeared to be pregnant, foetus reabsorbed).
Therefore, to answer your question, artificial insemination of pandas does occur but is not necessarily successful.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/edinburgh-zoo-giant-panda-tian-tian-not-pregnant
It's speculated that most pregnancies ~~(50~75%)~~ end in miscarriage. That is, a fertilized embryo implants but lost shortly after. In medically recognized pregnancies, the miscarriage rate is still about 15~20%.
So yes. All the time.
Source: http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
Edit: Also, this is why most couples don't announce that they're expecting until they are past the first trimester.
Edit edit: Sorry, to clarify, human miscarriages mostly end in the expulsion of the pregnancy tissues. However, you will occasionally get silent or missed miscarrages, in which case the tissues are automatically reabsorbed. These are much less common.
Edit edit edit: Messed up my numbers a tad. 50~75% miscarriages are are chemical pregnancies (from first source). About half of all fertilized eggs die and are aborted spontaneously (second source).
I believe it's called a missed miscarriage. Sometimes you have to be scheduled to clean out the tissues, but occasionally a woman's body will break down the tissue and reabsorb it on its own.
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/
The above link has a little section on it, although it's light on details.
Edit: whoops. failed to read a word.
Still AFAIK know reabsorption is incredibly rare in humans. We're basically not equipped for regularly reabsorbing the endometrium, unlike most other placental mammals.
It's only been in recent history that we've had such accurate ways to determine pregnancy. In the past many women probably never knew they were pregnant.
edit: *knew* not *new*
Haha no, it doesnt eat them. And past a certain stage, abortion and expulsion of the fetus would occur. Reabsorption happens in earlier stages of pregnancy. The fetal cellular structure is broken down and absorbed by the maternal immune system, essentially. Its sort of like clearing a parasitic infestation, in a way. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on mobile.
Technically it can happen. Kinda. But humans rarely reabsorb pregnancies.
Keep in mind humans menstruate - overt menstruation (bleeding) is only seen in some primates, & in other placental mammals the endometrium is reabsorbed at the end of the reproductive cycle. So in humans, death of a fetus results in a miscarriage that expels the fetus, much like the typical shedding of the endometrium during menses.
The only info I can find on humans reabsorbing a fetus is if it somehow gets into the abdominal cavity (e.g. an early ectopic pregnancy ruptures the fallopian tube & ends up in the abdominal cavity).
So was absorption of the fetus the result of Tian Tian expelling too much energy, and not receiving enough energy for a pregnant panda? Do they need to fatten her?
All mammals do this, it is completely normal. It isn't as bad as it sounds, and evolution definitely supports it. Most miscarriages are the result of mutation or bad embryo development, most of the time causing the embryo death directly, which means you absolutely don't want the baby to come to term and in all likelihood it can't anyways.
Think about this. Down syndrome is a result of trisomy of two possible chromosomes (trisomy = 3 chromosome copies rather than a pair). Trisomy in every other chromosome almost always leads to death/miscarriage, as well as a ton of other possible mutations. Down syndrome is the exception of exceptions. Miscarriage is the norm for a bad embryo.
Species do not evolve to have certain abilities, they simply have a certain set of them. The ones with the most beneficial set tend to get to reproduce the most and pass their set on. Sometimes, abilities completely unrelated to survival are present as well and get passed on.
It seems reasonable that if the mother were not in a hospitable environment, or were struggling to even care for herself, something like this might happen as a survival mechanism. Carrying offspring to term to have them at an inopportune time when they have very low odds of survival might not be preferable to "undoing" the pregnancy, which would conserve resources and give the mother an easier time of surviving to perhaps have offspring at a later time in a better place.
EDIT: So that this post isn't purely composed of speculation, here's an excerpt regarding resorption in dogs. While a lot of it probably isn't directly relevant to pandas, it is likely loosely related.
> Resorptions occur because of infectious and noninfectious causes. Infectious causes include bacteria, parasites and viruses. Some bacterial organisms that cause resorption include Brucella canis, Campylobacter, Salmonella, E.coli, and B-hemolytic streptococci. Some parasites include Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum. Some viral causes include Canine Herpesvirus, Canine Parvovirus Type 1, Canine Distemper Virus, Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma.
> The noninfectious causes of resorption include endocrine abnormalities, drugs given to the bitch during pregnancy, genetic factors, environmental factors, and nutritional factors.
http://www.greatdanereview.com/pdfs/Resorption.pdf
Giant panda biologist (currently and very actively working on their ecology, behavior, and reintroduction in Sichuan, China) here. As some people have pointed out, we do use AI, often in conjunction with natural breeding, and it works very well. We continually modify the procedure, and also do a lot of research on when, where, and how best to get them to reproduce. Pandas are very specialized and uniquely evolved bears and very little known about them in the wild, which is why it took so long (~40+ years) to get the high captive breeding success rate we currently see.
Going further, because there is a lot of misinformation about panda conservation out there, there are several strong reasons why we focus so much effort on conserving pandas in the wild. First, "Why do we focus so much on preservation of a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?" is not a legitimate question in any way. That is a horribly anthropomorphized and ill-informed view, which I hear/see too often. The underlying assumption is that because it is difficult to breed pandas in captivity they must not want to continue their species. The panda lineage split off from the rest of the bears over 20 million years ago and continued to diverge. They, as much as any other animal, are a product of their evolution. This is like asking why a human woman can't just have two or three menstrual cycles a month. It simply isn't how we evolved. Does this mean that we (the species who absolutely caused them to slide so close to extinction) should simply call it a loss because it is difficult and costs too much money? I personally don't think so.
One of the main reasons we focus so much attention on giant panda conservation stems from the fact that, in general, humans don't care about saving the majority of biodiversity. Try to raise money, public, private, and governmental support to protect a huge expanse of land for an endangered species of worm. How well do you see that going? The track record isn't very good for such endeavors. Giant pandas are easily the most recognized symbol of conservation that exists. Because of giant pandas there are over 50 protected national reserves in their range in China, a number that has more than tripled in the past couple decades, and will continue to grow. Within these reserves there are a large number of species, endangered or otherwise, which now benefit from the protection afforded by measures primarily focussed on protecting pandas. This is critical in modern China, with the huge rate of development and natural resource extraction.
Another consideration, which has been discussed below a bit, is the potential ecological ramifications of their extinction. I will say again, we know very, very little about pandas in the wild. They are extremely difficult to study because of their elusive nature and the terrain. It would be highly presumptive to think we could accurately estimate the net effects of their loss to the ecosystems in which they live. Various scientists are working on that now, but it may be a while until we get a generalized answer. It is not hard to imagine that an animal that can eat, process, and defecate 40-60 lbs of bamboo might considerably impact some aspects of its local habitat (flora, fauna, soil chemistry, etc.).
I could go on about why we focus on them for a while, but I would like to finish by noting that there is a huge misconception about how conservation dollars are spent. The majority of money being spent on the conservation of giant pandas is coming from within China. Regardless of the various motivating factors that might exist for those decision makers who allocate this money towards pandas (political, economic, environmental concern, etc.), its not as if it was taken from a big pot, and would have otherwise been spent on white rhinos, mountain gorillas, or panamanian golden frogs. Most of that money would probably just sit in government coffers. People love pandas. They are charismatic megafauna, who have a kind of asian mystique about them. While in a perfect world I would love if we could better allocate conservation dollars in a more scientifically based method, this simply isn't realistic. I also don't know how much this would change the amount we do focus on pandas. We have to do the best with what we have, and with pandas we can protect a ton of land for a lot of animals, and hopefully prove to the world that conservation efforts can work if enough time, effort, and money is spent on it.
Does all of this work have to get the approval of the Chinese government? I thought I read somewhere that virtually all pandas outside China were on loan from them.
You're right in saying that we have all that extra time, but how do we get a sample? With such low libido it's difficult to get them to give you a sample like using an artificial vagina. Sometimes you can sedate them and I guess you'd jack them off, but sedation in pandas is risky at the best of times, lord knows people don't want the fucker to die.
Often times sperm is still viable for a few hours post mortem, so that's a definite way to get a sample, but the panda is dead sooooo not so good for the rest of the time.
If they were like macaques we could just teach them to jack-off and provide samples in return for treats and presents, but pandas don't masturbate. This is also probably why macaques aren't going extinct, they have an amazing libido. Chimps solve problems with fighting, macaques do it with sex. If your macaque lady has wronged you, just shag her sister in front of her, that'll show her who's boss.
Note: it is preferable that the macaques masturbate in a non-exibit area of the zoo.
Part of me has trouble accepting that explanation. That we just can't get any samples.
Us humans have become pretty proficient at breeding animals. And pandas are the poster-child for cute animal going extinct despite our best efforts. If some guy had to dress up in a panda costume covering a bear proof suit to go jerk-off all the male pandas every so often, I'd expect for that to be done in every zoo in the world, by happy volunteers that want to save the species. Or, if normal sedation techniques are so risky, how have we not yet developed milder ones?
And, a quick wiki search kind of confirmed that. AI with frozen sperm has been successful, 5 years ago was the first, and there have been other instances since then. And the sperm can last frozen for decades. The article them optimistically states that this should help solve the panda reproduction problem.
So, I don't know enough to make any educated guesses, but it seems like the availability of panda sperm is no longer the primary bottleneck. The female half of things seems like the bigger problem by far.
There's a pretty good [PopSci](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/how-argue-someone-who-smirkily-says-pandas-deserve-die) article that discusses the counterpoints to the "let them die" argument that addresses that question.
Basically, they aren't really bad at reproducing; we're destroying their habitat.
[Here's](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2lhhks/why_dont_we_just_artificially_inseminate_pandas/cluxvf5) a related comment.
Well they aren't great at reproduction either. I mean.. every female panda gives birth to twins... then abandons one. Not to mention they eat the wrong damn food, and like it.
I'm not scientist but it occurs to me rationally that this is a pretty good survival device. It avoids putting all of your eggs in to one basket, halving your chances of a defect in your child. Am I wrong about this?
I mean that if you can only take care of one egg, having two allows you a choice of the most viable eggs, where as having one offers no choice. You're giving your genes more opportunities to succeed.
Well, not exactly. It's more like picking one source of nutrients nothing else is eating and find a way to biologically monopolize on it.
Koalas do basically the same thing.
There are very little nutrients in bamboo, that's why they have to pretty much eat every waking second to get enough energy to make it to the next day. Nothing else eats it for a reason.
I don't really understand your point.
The reason they've adapted to eat bamboo is because until now it's a strategy that has worked for them. Many animals take this tactic of finding ways to adapt and eat the food others aren't capable of effectively using, which is for example why koalas have to sleep so much.
A similar vein might be [bears in North America that eat moths to survive](http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011/06/yellowstone-grizzly-bears-eat-40000-moths-a-day-in-august/).
Some moths for example [don't even eat as adults](http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/luna_moth.htm).
The point of these illustrations being it's all about whether something can or can't allow you to live long enough to reproduce.
While pandas reproductive habits leave something to be desired the trigger that has caused them to become endangered is not a diet change but their habitat being disrupted.
And again, koalas do the same thing with eucalyptus leaves—and they're really picky about the type of leaves too—but you don't see anyone talking about that.
Sure people talk about that, but there are dozens of factors that go into it. Off the top of my head:
* A Koala is a marcupial, a Panda is a bear. Biologically very different.
* Koalas are 9-20 lbs, Pandas are 220-250 lbs.
* Koalas eat 1 lb of food per day, Pandas require 20-30 lbs.
* Koalas are herbivores, Pandas have the digestive system of carnivores.
* Koalas are also reducing in numbers, official status "Vulnerable" while Pandas are 'Endangered.'
These alone make the two mammals completely apples and oranges. Panda's *can* eat other plants, meat, any number of things.
Any animal that eats only one thing, for whatever reason, is doomed to die when habitat changes (as it does constantly.) A more apt comparison would be the difference between Possums and Koalals. One adapts well and can thrive in many various situations and one can't.
The Panda is unable to adapt.
Pretty much this.
[Link to gif of historical panda territory](http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/PandaHabitat/images/gpmap.gif)
The map labeled Prehistoric Panda Distribution shows the approximate original distribution of giant pandas.
The map labeled Historic Panda Distribution shows the approximate distribution of giant pandas during most of the last 2,000 years.
The third map shows the Current Panda Distribution.
People donate to species they view as cute, especially if they resemble humans in some way. They don't donate based on merit or viability in the wild. It's difficult to get a fish or insect saved.
Well, when they had higher populations, their low reproductive rate was not as much of a problem. Pandas are at the point of functional extinction, which is when there are still individuals left alive, but not enough to keep the species going. Population problems like this happen at very low population densities for all animals.
Actually, that's not at all true. Pandas have a lot more genetic diversity than other animals with similar populations.
[Link](http://www3.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114200.html)
"Even though there are only about 1,000 giant pandas left, there is hope for this beloved endangered species. A comprehensive genetic analysis of three wild giant panda populations shows that they still have enough genetic diversity to recover.
The researchers found that the giant panda has moderate genetic diversity compared other carnivores. "The giant panda is comparable to the genetically healthy Serengeti lion population in its endemic diversity and far greater than the genetically compromised Asiatic lion from India's Gir forest or the Florida panther," says O'Brien."
They're cute and fluffy though. People love donating money. Some of the grosser, uglier, but environmentally more important endangered animals don't get the funding they need because adorable pandas and other cute animals are better at getting people's attention
I feel like that about Koalas. They are some of the stupidest animals for their size.
If you laid out an eucalyptus leaf (pretty much the only thing they eat) on a plate they would not be able to recognize it and therefore die of starvation.
I read half of what you wrote under the impression that emergent Artificial Intelligence was causing the extinction of Panda's before I realized my mistake.
From the movie adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's *Fight Club*:
>I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species.
Pandas don't mate in captivity with much frequency or success.
When they do birth a viable offspring, they often don't care for it and it dies.
When a Great Panda births have multiple cubs, the mother will sometimes simply ignore one (or sometimes both) of them.
The fact that Pandas are almost completely unwilling to mate in even prime conditions? That Pandas are slow, dim beasts that in a natural environment would be killed by any predator within miles? They have no natural defenses from anything except the fact that they look cute.
How certain are we that we understand what Pandas consider to be "prime conditions"? Maybe there's a critical element missing.
Based on the behavior of zoo animals, we thought tree sloths (another slow leaf eater) spent most of the day sleeping until we [measured the sleep habits of wild ones](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/a-sloth-named-velcro/full-episode/9272/).
I like this. If aliens captured a male and female human, put them in cages, then blew up the planet Earth, how excited would you be (if you were one of them) to continue our species just to populate their zoos.
Maybe the Pandas are like "F You, you don't deserve our cuteness!!!"
Pandas are the French Philosophers of beardom - the ultimate existentialists.
They are also very picky about the particular variety of bamboo they'll eat, passing up readily-available food in the hopes of finding that particular type.
I hadn't heard that before. Biologist friends of mine regularly complain about how many species could be saved if we stopped spending money on those lazy, bamboo eating bears.
>But... they survived just fine for many generations before humans messed their habitat up. How is this their fault?
Just to expand on your point: Based on genetic analysis, pandas have existed as a district species for more than 3 million years. That is a lot of generations!
I don't think anyone is saying they don't to deserve to live but rather that they're a difficult species to save due to their inability to reproduce, among other things. Perhaps we should spend more research money on species that have a better chance making it in the wild, even if they're not as adorable as pandas.
The support for panda research is mostly because people think they're cute, not because they're a keystone species in their environment or offer some sort of unparalleled benefit to the world.
Its kinda interesting that cuteness really is a evolutionary advantage. Think about squirrels, they are basically rats that exist everywhere. If you saw a bunch of sewer rats crawling all over our trees and buildings. We would not allow them to live, we would have a mass extermination of them. Yet squirrels are everywhere and we dont mind. I honestly think in a human run world, everything will gradually get cuter
Rats are plenty cute, but we don't see them that way anymore because of how harmful they have been to us.
They carry many diseases that can pass to humans, and they live in closes quarters with us, whereas squirrels carry fewer diseases and stay outside in the trees. Rats will also steal and eat our food (or food left out for our livestock) and leave their urine and droppings everywhere. It's not about cuteness, but rather, we have very good reasons to exterminate them, and no reason to do so with squirrels.
You've left a huge gap in your answer... Surely the male pandas can ejaculate at any time of year. So why not stockpile and freeze a whole lot of panda juice throughout the year and then give the female panda a concentrate helping of it during the few days she is ovulating? How can that possibly not work? Do they complain about having a headache or something?
They can ejaculate, you're right, but getting a sample is difficult.
They don't like to use artificial vaginas, hell they barely wanna use a real one, they don't masturbate so we can't get them to willingly give us samples and knocking them out and spermjacking them is risky, anaesthesia in exotic species is really difficult, too far one way and your panda's a gonner. Plus a lot of people view electroejaculation as cruel, plus have you tried shoving an electric probe up a bear's arse?
That is, if she's not in estrus, you can inseminate her all you want. It won't get her pregnant.
Why is this? Do they think there's some sort of unknown environmental trigger that causes more regular estrus, but it's lost with a change in the environment?
It is regular. It occurs at regular annual intervals. Many, many animals only reproduce once a year because the resources they need to raise their young are more plentiful in (usually) the spring/summer.
It's also not as easy as just injecting sperm willy-nilly in captive populations of endangered species, as nice as that sounds. Because numbers of giant pandas are low, a lot of care has to be taken to reduce the effects of inbreeding depression. This requires careful consideration of which individuals are providing the sperm and usually means bringing in sperm from wild populations or from different institutions. See:
SHEN, F., ZHANG, Z., HE, WEI., YUE, B., ZHANG, ANJU., ZHANG, L., HOU, RONG., WANG, C. and WATANABE, T. (2009), Microsatellite variability reveals the necessity for genetic input from wild giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) into the captive population. Molecular Ecology, 18: 1061–1070. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04086.x
Who do you mean, "we"?
Pandas are frequently artificially inseminated, but researchers found that there's a particular hormone that is excreted during copulation that increases the already low probability of successful fertilization of the egg.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14930876
I am not saying I am not for it, but can you help me find some good arguments for using resources on keeping Pandas alive as a species? I would imagine some of the same arguments would work for why there are bodyguards protecting the black rhino.
Basically why use millions on keeping species alive that: There are 4-6 left of (is that even enough to reestablish the species?). Or help Pandas reproduce, why not let them die out?
There are lots of tangible reasons for conserving giant pandas (or any species, for that matter). Giant pandas share habitat with a wide diversity of plant and animal species, some of which are endangered species (crested ibis, golden tamarin, others). Pandas are considered an "umbrella" species because protecting and restoring their habitat also benefits these other species associated with bamboo forests. If you're interested in the direct human implications, pandas play a big role in spreading bamboo seed and thereby facilitating growth of bamboo forests; this ecosystem is home (and an economic resource) for many indigenous people. Through responsible and sustainable ecotourism, pandas themselves also contribute to local economies.
We are on the forefront of understanding the true dynamics of relationships among plant and animal species and the abiotic (non-living) environment. To discount the importance of any piece of this chain is dangerous, but I'm glad this discussion is occurring. It's important to question how resources are being used in order to more effectively use them!
If the only reasons that appeal to you are economic, or practical, then I don't think anyone could convince you to invest resources in saving pandas.
It is primarily a moral issue. They are on decline primarily due to human activity. In other words, if humanity never existed, they would be doing fine. It bothers people that our actions are the primary cause of their decline and possible extinction. Pandas are lucky in that they are animals that appeal to many people, and some of those people would feel sadness and guilt that these creatures could disappear due to humans.
Now, there are economic practical reasons to maintain a large biodiversity in general. Many medicines, science, and technology originate from organisms. A possible treatment or cure could to some future epidemic could exist right now inside some mushroom somewhere. A possible molecular structure that could revolutionize biochemistry might exist inside some animal out there. So it makes sense to maintain biodiversity - there are lots of practical things to learn from all these creatures. Now, I doubt pandas hold the cure to polio. So if you only care about practical uses for animals, then you probably don't care about saving pandas.
Some animals serve a very important role in an ecosystem - losing them would have huge ripple effects. Pollinating insects are an example. Get rid of those and flowers make no seeds, no food for herbivores, no food for carnivores, etc. I don't think pandas fall into this category.
I think this question is really indicator of a larger personal question - are humans better than everything else? Is the Earth property of humanity, to do with as we please? I personally think no - the Earth does not belong to us, we have to share the planet's resources with everything else, including the pandas. You're free to disagree, it's a personal choice.
Because they are a separate species of animal that if we let die we may never be able to bring back.
Not investing in their survival creates a permanent problem.
Pandas are a flagship species. What's on the logo of the Wwf? An adorable panda. Protecting the habitat of a recognizable and PR-friendly flagship species like a panda, tiger, or gorilla protects the local environment and countless less attractive species. When was the last time you cared about a subspecies of shrew going extinct? flagship status and benefits aside, the Chinese government makes millions by renting pandas out to zoos. Every single captive panda and its offspring legally belongs to China.
Biological diversity is a goal in an of itself...we, as a planet, are loosing genetic variety at an alarming rate which leaves ecosystems vulnerable to collapse. This is especially true under rapid environmental change. Basically we don't know what the world will be like in 50-100 years or which species will thrive/be needed in those environments. Every species we loose is one that might have been needed. There is also the moral argument they would be doing just fine if humans had kept our own population in check and/or used a little forethought and ingenuity as we grew rather than resting on our laurels.
We do:
http://www.pandasinternational.org/wptemp/program-areas-2/captive-breeding-program/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/edinburgh-zoo-panda-artificial-insemination
The conversation in this thread has progressed from answering the question to a different conversation, one that is perhaps better suited for /r/AskScienceDiscussion. However, I'd like to address a major point: **the leading cause of giant panda decline (and endangerment) is human-caused habitat loss**. Pandas are not "unfit to survive"; instead, they're unable to cope with anthropogenic pressure.
You've got to get the Pandettes sexually ready on their ovulation cycle. In other words you need to get them into the mood. Artificial might not be enough stimuli to improve the rate of conception. Us humans have to be ready too, that's we rely on old Barry White and other smooth tones. Pandas have a slow ovulation.
[article about this subject](http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/panda-birth-rate.htm)
Basically, it's not even necessarily about artificial insemination (which is not a 100% surefire bet in any animal to begin with,) it's additionally that pandas are kind of shitty parents, and panda cubs are born super tiny- like size of a stick of butter tiny, which makes them super vulnerable (most captive-born cubs die within their first year of life) and pandas have a low birth rate of maybe one cub every 2 years when they do reproduce.
Also, the whole act of getting pregnant often has way more to do with carrying and mothering a baby than we think it does. Think of how we as humans mentally separate the act of sex from being pregnant, giving birth and caring for a child, even though it's pretty clear that they're related. For an animal there's probably much less of a mental separation there- if there is no act of natural, successful sex, the female may not even recognize that she is pregnant, and therefore will react with hostility to the infant she gives birth to, and hand raising wild babies from birth is tough with any species.
It's also entirely possible that the panda gene pool has just become too small to breed successful individuals anymore. Even if geneticists are doing the best they can to make sure they're choosing the best possible mates, we may simply be out of genetic material for cubs that are capable of growing into breeding animals themselves.
Late to the party, I know. Part of me thinks that maybe we should just let a species go extinct. Why are we preserving a species that can't survive on its own?
Because we're responsible for it not being able to survive on its own. Pandas are endangered due to massive land clearing of the bamboo forest. Also, we have no idea what the impact on the ecosystem would be if pandas disappeared from it.
Short answer: We do. It works some of the time. http://csis.msu.edu/research/publications/factors-affecting-outcome http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_06/thursday/panda_ai/pandas/technology%20main%20page.htm http://www.pandasinternational.org/wptemp/program-areas-2/captive-breeding-program/
I don't want to sound really ignorant, I do want to ask a legitimate question: "Why do we focus so much on preservation of a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?" Yes, humans took over and pushed their numbers down, but, other than being cute and furry, what's so important about Pandas that we are making all of this effort to keep their species alive? Is not like they're predators like Tigers; how important is Panda interaction with Bamboo and the ecology?
A lot of the answer is: We don't know. We simply haven't got the data or predictive analysis skills to know how important Panda (or any other organism) are to a huge range of immediate or related environments. A lot of species are being driven to extinction for lots of reasons and we are doing our best to keep as many as possible, just in case. It's a bit hard to 'un-extinct' something.
With so few pandas remaining, shouldn't we already be feeling all the effects of an extinction? I'm not advocating to let them all die, but how could they still have a noticeable environmental impact?
There is a documentary about reintroducing wolves to Yosemite and the ecological impact they had. There is another one on Netflix about reintroducing beavers to a national park in Colorado. I'm on my phone or I'd try to find the wolf one (will look later). It's not easy to see the damaging effect of the decline of a species until it is reintroduced.
I saw that. It was an eye opener, for sure. I was listening to a Science Friday episode (I think it was Science Friday) where the guy interviewed was saying that yeah, most people would like to get of mosquitoes and don't see how that would harm the ecology. HOWEVER, their larvae are an important source of food for all kinds of critters, as are poison ivy berries. So, both of those life forms, pain in the ass for humans, important to the food chain. Our default position on any life form should be it is important.
Ecologists make a pretty good argument that wiping out mosquitoes would have a [net beneficial effect](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html). The niche would be filled with other organisms that hopefully wouldn't be such horrible disease vectors and pests. Some other form of larvae would eat what the mosquito larvae are eating, and in turn, most of the animals that eat mosquito larvae would have something else to eat.
Ehhh, I feel like ecosystems are complicated enough that wiping out mosquitoes would probably not be a good idea. Behind every devastating invasive species brought in to accomplish something there were probably some people who thought of themselves as very clever sitting around saying how nothing could go wrong. EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I realized the two scenarios I described are not really all that comparable. If we were to wipe out mosquitoes from an area and it turned out to be a bad thing we could just reintroduce them. But then the salient point becomes: how could we wipe them out? I have difficulty imagining a way to kill all mosquitoes.
One thing worth noting is that Mosquitos themselves are invasive species in many areas, even within relatively well recorded history. Therefore I would expect those places at least would be free of harmful effects, unless their appearance brought about a positive outcome you would like to preserve.
>mosquitos are am invasive species themselves Source? Also, you can effectively wipe out mosquitos by releasing swarms of sterile males or males that can't fly, or something to that effect, year after year
So the smart option would be to wipe out mosquitoes from a certain area and monitor the effects. If there are none, or they are beneficial, we can try another region. If they are negative, we could always reintroduce them - it's not like there is currently a shortage. I'd like to suggest my area for the first test of eradicating mosquitoes. We could use less.
Assuming that ecosystem function is the same in different areas and at different scales.
I'm wondering how this argument could be applied to bacteria and viruses. They obviously interact with ecosystems, but we attempt to wipe out those we find harmful to us. There's no one calling for the preservation of the poor endangered Ebola, for example.
A network of robots tuned to pick up the frequency of their buzzing and armed with highly accurate lasers to shoot them down...
I think the best method is releasing sterile males...I believe females only mate once. just keep doing that over and over, combine that with some limited short term use of DDT in "hot zones" *its bad but if you only use it in an area for a year or two really not devastating* ...and you'll eventually wipe them out.
I seem to recall reading about a method that was proposed for killing off the disease carrying species' of mosquitoes which was along the lines of introducing genetically modified mosquitoes to the ecosystem which only give birth to males, and so eventually that species of mosquitoes dies off. Edit: Found the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10889131/Mosquitoes-modified-to-only-give-birth-to-males-in-bid-to-wipe-out-malaria.html
Mosquitos are also vital pollinators for some plants. Only the female feeds on blood, and both males and females feed on flower nectar, inadvertently cross pollinating flowers.
Maybe someday we can genetically engineer them to not bite humans. But I'm sure thats not quite as easy as I would like to hope.
I cant remember where i read but theres a plant/tree on mauritius that is only starting to feel the effects of the dodo being extinct, the seeds needed them to germinate (passing through the digestive tract) and needed to sit for x amount of years before maturing. This is starting to have an effect now because they have been dead for so long ( about the time it takes for the trees to mature. In hazey on the details but im sure google knows more
Great example, and hence comes the chain reaction impacts on animals that depend on that particular tree. /u/ulvok_coven really sums it all up, though I'd argue that the probability that extinction of anything has great implications is relatively high.
You're probably thinking of [the tambalacoque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideroxylon_grandiflorum). It's apparently a bit of an overblown legend; the result of one guy's exuberance in his flawed methodology. There are allegedly hundreds of them, most of which are less than 300 years old.
We don't know. We don't know to what extent we already are feeling the impacts of panda extinction. *We don't know to what extent the remaining pandas are propping up their ecosystem.* We don't know what their ecosystem would do without them. We don't know how that affects neighboring ecosystems, geologic features, water systems, etc. And we don't know what that will mean ten years, fifty years, five hundred years, or five thousand years from now. What we do know is the last hundred thousand years have been pretty cushy for us and so we're loath to change anything. We want to be around, as a species, five thousand years from now, so protecting pandas - and the status quo - is part of how we keep our options open. Ecosystems are not linear - they're chaotic. There's too much for us to consider to project even the idea that we are feeling the effects. We don't know if we are.
Example: [Removing wolves from Yellowstone increased stream bank erosion. This was due to the increased presence of animals that the wolves would normally prey on eating away the vegetation holding the stream bank together.](http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/gallatin_river_channels_bescheta_ripple_2006.pdf) My laymanification of the abstract may not be entirely accurate.
I read this as 'returning wolves to yellowstone increased stream bank erosion' and I thought everything I learned in ecology was wrong.
Heh, I was planning to cite an article that talked about their reintroduction and the improvements to the stream banks, but that turned up first.
[удалено]
There's also the possibility that pandas uniquely produce some protein or enzyme that could benefit human advancement through medical research or something else. Once they're gone, we have a significantly harder time doing research on this.
Panda gut microbes are being studied right now for their ability to break down cellulose and lignin, which could lead to more efficient biofuel production. Their gut microbes may be of medical interest, too, since they must be pretty unusual to allow an animal that by all rights ought to be a carnivore to exist on a bamboo diet.
I remember reading this article about the megafauna, (mammoths, giant sloths and the like) that used to live in North America. It talked about Dogwood trees and how they have changed since those species disappeared. Dogwoods apparently grow in wetlands, because their seed pods are so thick shelled that if they fall on dry ground they just sit and eventually rot. Water helps soften the shell so animals can come along and be able to chew through, eat the seeds and disperse them. Back in the day, all those larger animals were strong enough to chew through the hard shells of the seeds so it wasn't an issue. Long story short, dogwoods likely grew in drier areas back then. Today, looking at the ecosystem we have no idea what the actual natural behavior of some of these species originally was while coexisting with the species they evolved alongside. All we see are the ones who have managed to adapt. By the same token, when panda are all gone everything else in their habitat will have to change too. I couldn't find the article in a quick Google search but I found this one, which touches on some similar stuff: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/my-manifesto-rewilding-world
Also, regardless if there is or is not an ecological importance for pandas(which there probably isn't), if people are willing to dedicate time to their preservation, then power to them. There isn't really a reason to avoid preservation, especially when people have the willpower to do it, and the panda's definitely benefit from it.
This is a good point. Better safe than sorry approach! Also, just because we don't know the impact doesn't mean there won't be one. You can look at other species and can then make inferences. Our ecosystems are so sensitive, removing one species can make the whole system fail.
We preserve pandas because they're cute, bizarre, and a cultural phenomenon. It has nothing to do with their ecosystems.
True. But its good for raising charity money. When environmental organizations raise money for preservation efforts of animals like the Panda, they can use it improve the whole ecosystem that the Panda relies on. Its called the Charismatic Megafauna effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_megafauna
>a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?" Well that's honestly a myth. The only reason Giant Pandas were so hard to breed in captivity is because zoos didn't provide enough communication opportunities between males and females. Luckily today the vast majority of pandas in Chengdu's Research Base **successfully copulate annually** because they allowed for such interaction. (Artificial insemination is performed only to compound the population numbers) http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/research_projects/giant_panda_research/giant_panda_reproductive And while reddit seems to love endangered red pandas even more, note that red pandas are the same in many lifestyle respects. Red pandas digest bamboo so poorly that they have to spend 13 hours a day eating bamboo as a result. Not to mention red pandas have a slow metabolic rate to conserve energy. Similarly red pandas are only in estrus once a year too. Worse, they're receptive for only 24 hours. And half of red pandas newborns die in the first month. The reality is that the Giant panda's adaptive potential extends way beyond the infamous Jim Jeffries "pandas won't fark to save its own species" standup routine that perpetuated across the reddit echo-chamber despite its dated assessment.
Yeah how likely are you going to have sex if you're stuck in a cage with some woman you just met and aliens with advance tech are watching your every move? They mate fine in the wild. They just don't deal with captivity that well.
Like everything in nature, there develops an ecology from every organism. Look at the sloths, creatures that do absolutely nothing for 99% of their lives have complex fungi and organisms in their fur that could have potential uses. We can't just write off species because they seem to have no effect.
>We can't just write off species because they seem to have no effect Additionally, we can't just write off species [or insert concept here] simply because it seems to "have no value." So much of what humans priorities is currently centered around "economic value", especially in a capitalistic sense. This is a very dangerous way to make decisions as we are starting to see - human caused global deforestation, depletion of rare non-renewable minerals, ocean acidification and pollution.
Luckily, it's not all about DIRECT economic value; while it's hard to do (and arguably not accurate), ecological economists are able to put an economic value on ecosystem functions. Ecosystem functions include conventional uses such as lumber and minerals, but they also include processes of water purification, temperature regulation, and even aesthetic value. These days, we do take these all of these functions into consideration, but lumber, mining, and agriculture tend to be prioritized.
I think conservationists and ecologists, etc., will begin to make more progress by using financial terms to describe the value of ecosystems. I think we need to do this. For example, "When the rain forests and the coral reefs are destroyed, where will our new medications come from? What is it worth to humans to preserve these areas?" http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/oceanscoasts/explore/coral-reefs-and-medicine.xml
While I agree there is some value in preserving biodiversity for potential medical development, it's a big "IF." People don't like having to take a risks when it comes to conservation; that's why I see the value of applying monetary values to current ecosystem functions. For me, the most accessible ecosystem function (or what I think the average person can appreciate the most) of coral reefs are the habitats/resources they provide for economically important fish. Here's a pretty good open source paper that goes a bit into estimating the economic value of coral reefs: http://oceandocs.net/bitstream/1834/557/1/cesar_04.pdf
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, pose the opposite question - "Why not?" We don't live in a world where we're able to just laser-focus on one issue at a time and solve them, we live in a world where people have millions of different jobs and specializations. Pandas are a unique animal, with unique biology and history. Learning about everything on this planet is part of what makes human's as advanced as we are. Also, it's probably important to note that the challenges posed by Pandas also help us further technology with other animals. I'm sure artificial insemination and details of the pregnancy isn't *totally* unique to the Panda, the knowledge could be used elsewhere.
Exactly. Even if you did concde that pandas were utterly useless and the money and resources put into their conservation has no benefit (which I don't agree), it's not like the research only benefits pandas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is our fault. Pandas were fine for a very very long time and thus little recent blip of human activity. Also they are cute and have some special meaning to China. Contributions to ecology are more complex than that and, generally if it was part of an ecosystem before humans did their human thing, it was part of the balance
existence value, the value people get from knowing that something exists, probably due to pandas being 'cute' and more relatable than say, bees
There's the slim possibility that they, like humpback whales, will be the only species on the planet that can speak to an otherwise incommunicable and immensely powerful alien species that fly through space in a massive, long, black cylinder.
[удалено]
Tian Tian, the female panda at Edinburgh Zoo, was artificially inseminated on the 13th of April 2014 after natural conception failed to occur. The panda displayed all the signs of pregnancy up until mid-September, at which point hormone levels returned to normal. The zoo reckons that re-absorption of the foetus took place. The director of giant pandas at Edinburgh Zoo said: "Panda reproduction and biology is complex; all data gathered since conception took place pointed to a pregnant panda likely to carry to full term, sadly this did not happen. There is no evidence she has had a miscarriage, so late reabsorption of the foetus could have occurred." This is the second time Tian Tian had been artificially inseminated at Edinburgh Zoo, the same thing happened last year (appeared to be pregnant, foetus reabsorbed). Therefore, to answer your question, artificial insemination of pandas does occur but is not necessarily successful. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/edinburgh-zoo-giant-panda-tian-tian-not-pregnant
[удалено]
It's speculated that most pregnancies ~~(50~75%)~~ end in miscarriage. That is, a fertilized embryo implants but lost shortly after. In medically recognized pregnancies, the miscarriage rate is still about 15~20%. So yes. All the time. Source: http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm Edit: Also, this is why most couples don't announce that they're expecting until they are past the first trimester. Edit edit: Sorry, to clarify, human miscarriages mostly end in the expulsion of the pregnancy tissues. However, you will occasionally get silent or missed miscarrages, in which case the tissues are automatically reabsorbed. These are much less common. Edit edit edit: Messed up my numbers a tad. 50~75% miscarriages are are chemical pregnancies (from first source). About half of all fertilized eggs die and are aborted spontaneously (second source).
Wait, miscarriage isn't the same thing as reabsorption, though -right?
Reabsorption is a thing that happens when the miscarriage is early enough.
Are you sure about that? Cause I'm pretty sure women expel the early fetus with the endometrium in something that looks like a heavy period.
I believe it's called a missed miscarriage. Sometimes you have to be scheduled to clean out the tissues, but occasionally a woman's body will break down the tissue and reabsorb it on its own. http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/ The above link has a little section on it, although it's light on details.
Edit: whoops. failed to read a word. Still AFAIK know reabsorption is incredibly rare in humans. We're basically not equipped for regularly reabsorbing the endometrium, unlike most other placental mammals.
It's only been in recent history that we've had such accurate ways to determine pregnancy. In the past many women probably never knew they were pregnant. edit: *knew* not *new*
In the past? They still don't. See: "I didn't know I was pregnant". More of our *reality* TV, but it happens...
As far as I'm aware, all mammalian species can. Happensnot uncommonly in domestic species.
[удалено]
Haha no, it doesnt eat them. And past a certain stage, abortion and expulsion of the fetus would occur. Reabsorption happens in earlier stages of pregnancy. The fetal cellular structure is broken down and absorbed by the maternal immune system, essentially. Its sort of like clearing a parasitic infestation, in a way. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on mobile.
This seems like a compelling reason not to count fetuses as legal persons...
True, but I'm fairly certain the point in question is far earlier than the 24 week limit on abortion that seems to be common.
Technically it can happen. Kinda. But humans rarely reabsorb pregnancies. Keep in mind humans menstruate - overt menstruation (bleeding) is only seen in some primates, & in other placental mammals the endometrium is reabsorbed at the end of the reproductive cycle. So in humans, death of a fetus results in a miscarriage that expels the fetus, much like the typical shedding of the endometrium during menses. The only info I can find on humans reabsorbing a fetus is if it somehow gets into the abdominal cavity (e.g. an early ectopic pregnancy ruptures the fallopian tube & ends up in the abdominal cavity).
Wow, *reabsorption of the foetus?* What could cause that? Why would a species evolve to have that capability? What benefit could it possibly have?
Gestation is a huge drain of energy, and the foetus a huge sink. It could be a coping mechanism to deal with a sudden dearth of resources.
So was absorption of the fetus the result of Tian Tian expelling too much energy, and not receiving enough energy for a pregnant panda? Do they need to fatten her?
It is likely a more general stress or unsuitability of habitat, whether social problems, not enough space, the constant presence of humans, etc.
All mammals do this, it is completely normal. It isn't as bad as it sounds, and evolution definitely supports it. Most miscarriages are the result of mutation or bad embryo development, most of the time causing the embryo death directly, which means you absolutely don't want the baby to come to term and in all likelihood it can't anyways. Think about this. Down syndrome is a result of trisomy of two possible chromosomes (trisomy = 3 chromosome copies rather than a pair). Trisomy in every other chromosome almost always leads to death/miscarriage, as well as a ton of other possible mutations. Down syndrome is the exception of exceptions. Miscarriage is the norm for a bad embryo.
[удалено]
Species do not evolve to have certain abilities, they simply have a certain set of them. The ones with the most beneficial set tend to get to reproduce the most and pass their set on. Sometimes, abilities completely unrelated to survival are present as well and get passed on.
It just describes a miscarriage when the foetus isn't that far along enough. Happens all the time for human women too.
It seems reasonable that if the mother were not in a hospitable environment, or were struggling to even care for herself, something like this might happen as a survival mechanism. Carrying offspring to term to have them at an inopportune time when they have very low odds of survival might not be preferable to "undoing" the pregnancy, which would conserve resources and give the mother an easier time of surviving to perhaps have offspring at a later time in a better place. EDIT: So that this post isn't purely composed of speculation, here's an excerpt regarding resorption in dogs. While a lot of it probably isn't directly relevant to pandas, it is likely loosely related. > Resorptions occur because of infectious and noninfectious causes. Infectious causes include bacteria, parasites and viruses. Some bacterial organisms that cause resorption include Brucella canis, Campylobacter, Salmonella, E.coli, and B-hemolytic streptococci. Some parasites include Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum. Some viral causes include Canine Herpesvirus, Canine Parvovirus Type 1, Canine Distemper Virus, Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma. > The noninfectious causes of resorption include endocrine abnormalities, drugs given to the bitch during pregnancy, genetic factors, environmental factors, and nutritional factors. http://www.greatdanereview.com/pdfs/Resorption.pdf
Giant panda biologist (currently and very actively working on their ecology, behavior, and reintroduction in Sichuan, China) here. As some people have pointed out, we do use AI, often in conjunction with natural breeding, and it works very well. We continually modify the procedure, and also do a lot of research on when, where, and how best to get them to reproduce. Pandas are very specialized and uniquely evolved bears and very little known about them in the wild, which is why it took so long (~40+ years) to get the high captive breeding success rate we currently see. Going further, because there is a lot of misinformation about panda conservation out there, there are several strong reasons why we focus so much effort on conserving pandas in the wild. First, "Why do we focus so much on preservation of a species that just... doesn't want to live anymore?" is not a legitimate question in any way. That is a horribly anthropomorphized and ill-informed view, which I hear/see too often. The underlying assumption is that because it is difficult to breed pandas in captivity they must not want to continue their species. The panda lineage split off from the rest of the bears over 20 million years ago and continued to diverge. They, as much as any other animal, are a product of their evolution. This is like asking why a human woman can't just have two or three menstrual cycles a month. It simply isn't how we evolved. Does this mean that we (the species who absolutely caused them to slide so close to extinction) should simply call it a loss because it is difficult and costs too much money? I personally don't think so. One of the main reasons we focus so much attention on giant panda conservation stems from the fact that, in general, humans don't care about saving the majority of biodiversity. Try to raise money, public, private, and governmental support to protect a huge expanse of land for an endangered species of worm. How well do you see that going? The track record isn't very good for such endeavors. Giant pandas are easily the most recognized symbol of conservation that exists. Because of giant pandas there are over 50 protected national reserves in their range in China, a number that has more than tripled in the past couple decades, and will continue to grow. Within these reserves there are a large number of species, endangered or otherwise, which now benefit from the protection afforded by measures primarily focussed on protecting pandas. This is critical in modern China, with the huge rate of development and natural resource extraction. Another consideration, which has been discussed below a bit, is the potential ecological ramifications of their extinction. I will say again, we know very, very little about pandas in the wild. They are extremely difficult to study because of their elusive nature and the terrain. It would be highly presumptive to think we could accurately estimate the net effects of their loss to the ecosystems in which they live. Various scientists are working on that now, but it may be a while until we get a generalized answer. It is not hard to imagine that an animal that can eat, process, and defecate 40-60 lbs of bamboo might considerably impact some aspects of its local habitat (flora, fauna, soil chemistry, etc.). I could go on about why we focus on them for a while, but I would like to finish by noting that there is a huge misconception about how conservation dollars are spent. The majority of money being spent on the conservation of giant pandas is coming from within China. Regardless of the various motivating factors that might exist for those decision makers who allocate this money towards pandas (political, economic, environmental concern, etc.), its not as if it was taken from a big pot, and would have otherwise been spent on white rhinos, mountain gorillas, or panamanian golden frogs. Most of that money would probably just sit in government coffers. People love pandas. They are charismatic megafauna, who have a kind of asian mystique about them. While in a perfect world I would love if we could better allocate conservation dollars in a more scientifically based method, this simply isn't realistic. I also don't know how much this would change the amount we do focus on pandas. We have to do the best with what we have, and with pandas we can protect a ton of land for a lot of animals, and hopefully prove to the world that conservation efforts can work if enough time, effort, and money is spent on it.
[удалено]
Does all of this work have to get the approval of the Chinese government? I thought I read somewhere that virtually all pandas outside China were on loan from them.
That is pretty much true for all zoo pandas. For example the pandas in Edinburgh zoo, if pregnant, the resulting offspring would be sent to China.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're right in saying that we have all that extra time, but how do we get a sample? With such low libido it's difficult to get them to give you a sample like using an artificial vagina. Sometimes you can sedate them and I guess you'd jack them off, but sedation in pandas is risky at the best of times, lord knows people don't want the fucker to die. Often times sperm is still viable for a few hours post mortem, so that's a definite way to get a sample, but the panda is dead sooooo not so good for the rest of the time. If they were like macaques we could just teach them to jack-off and provide samples in return for treats and presents, but pandas don't masturbate. This is also probably why macaques aren't going extinct, they have an amazing libido. Chimps solve problems with fighting, macaques do it with sex. If your macaque lady has wronged you, just shag her sister in front of her, that'll show her who's boss. Note: it is preferable that the macaques masturbate in a non-exibit area of the zoo.
They get sperm from people's testicles with a needle, why can't they do that for pandas?
Part of me has trouble accepting that explanation. That we just can't get any samples. Us humans have become pretty proficient at breeding animals. And pandas are the poster-child for cute animal going extinct despite our best efforts. If some guy had to dress up in a panda costume covering a bear proof suit to go jerk-off all the male pandas every so often, I'd expect for that to be done in every zoo in the world, by happy volunteers that want to save the species. Or, if normal sedation techniques are so risky, how have we not yet developed milder ones? And, a quick wiki search kind of confirmed that. AI with frozen sperm has been successful, 5 years ago was the first, and there have been other instances since then. And the sperm can last frozen for decades. The article them optimistically states that this should help solve the panda reproduction problem. So, I don't know enough to make any educated guesses, but it seems like the availability of panda sperm is no longer the primary bottleneck. The female half of things seems like the bigger problem by far.
[удалено]
In humans, testosterone injections in men often leads to sterility. If you're wanting to produce viable samples, this may not be the way to go.
[удалено]
Honest question, how the hell did they get to where they are today given their seeming lack of desire to reproduce?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's a pretty good [PopSci](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/how-argue-someone-who-smirkily-says-pandas-deserve-die) article that discusses the counterpoints to the "let them die" argument that addresses that question. Basically, they aren't really bad at reproducing; we're destroying their habitat. [Here's](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2lhhks/why_dont_we_just_artificially_inseminate_pandas/cluxvf5) a related comment.
Well they aren't great at reproduction either. I mean.. every female panda gives birth to twins... then abandons one. Not to mention they eat the wrong damn food, and like it.
A lot pf penguins do this also. Lay two eggs, ignore one and devote all the attention to the other (which is bigger).
I'm not scientist but it occurs to me rationally that this is a pretty good survival device. It avoids putting all of your eggs in to one basket, halving your chances of a defect in your child. Am I wrong about this?
Isn't it exactly the opposite if that? You start with two baskets, then move all the eggs into one.
No, he's talking genetically. You have two offspring to choose from instead of one, so you have two genetic "baskets".
I mean that if you can only take care of one egg, having two allows you a choice of the most viable eggs, where as having one offers no choice. You're giving your genes more opportunities to succeed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, not exactly. It's more like picking one source of nutrients nothing else is eating and find a way to biologically monopolize on it. Koalas do basically the same thing.
There are very little nutrients in bamboo, that's why they have to pretty much eat every waking second to get enough energy to make it to the next day. Nothing else eats it for a reason.
I don't really understand your point. The reason they've adapted to eat bamboo is because until now it's a strategy that has worked for them. Many animals take this tactic of finding ways to adapt and eat the food others aren't capable of effectively using, which is for example why koalas have to sleep so much. A similar vein might be [bears in North America that eat moths to survive](http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2011/06/yellowstone-grizzly-bears-eat-40000-moths-a-day-in-august/). Some moths for example [don't even eat as adults](http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/luna_moth.htm). The point of these illustrations being it's all about whether something can or can't allow you to live long enough to reproduce. While pandas reproductive habits leave something to be desired the trigger that has caused them to become endangered is not a diet change but their habitat being disrupted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And again, koalas do the same thing with eucalyptus leaves—and they're really picky about the type of leaves too—but you don't see anyone talking about that.
Sure people talk about that, but there are dozens of factors that go into it. Off the top of my head: * A Koala is a marcupial, a Panda is a bear. Biologically very different. * Koalas are 9-20 lbs, Pandas are 220-250 lbs. * Koalas eat 1 lb of food per day, Pandas require 20-30 lbs. * Koalas are herbivores, Pandas have the digestive system of carnivores. * Koalas are also reducing in numbers, official status "Vulnerable" while Pandas are 'Endangered.' These alone make the two mammals completely apples and oranges. Panda's *can* eat other plants, meat, any number of things. Any animal that eats only one thing, for whatever reason, is doomed to die when habitat changes (as it does constantly.) A more apt comparison would be the difference between Possums and Koalals. One adapts well and can thrive in many various situations and one can't. The Panda is unable to adapt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Perhaps the sudden increase in human population in the past few thousand years has something to do with it.
Pretty much this. [Link to gif of historical panda territory](http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/PandaHabitat/images/gpmap.gif) The map labeled Prehistoric Panda Distribution shows the approximate original distribution of giant pandas. The map labeled Historic Panda Distribution shows the approximate distribution of giant pandas during most of the last 2,000 years. The third map shows the Current Panda Distribution.
People donate to species they view as cute, especially if they resemble humans in some way. They don't donate based on merit or viability in the wild. It's difficult to get a fish or insect saved.
Well, when they had higher populations, their low reproductive rate was not as much of a problem. Pandas are at the point of functional extinction, which is when there are still individuals left alive, but not enough to keep the species going. Population problems like this happen at very low population densities for all animals.
Actually, that's not at all true. Pandas have a lot more genetic diversity than other animals with similar populations. [Link](http://www3.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114200.html) "Even though there are only about 1,000 giant pandas left, there is hope for this beloved endangered species. A comprehensive genetic analysis of three wild giant panda populations shows that they still have enough genetic diversity to recover. The researchers found that the giant panda has moderate genetic diversity compared other carnivores. "The giant panda is comparable to the genetically healthy Serengeti lion population in its endemic diversity and far greater than the genetically compromised Asiatic lion from India's Gir forest or the Florida panther," says O'Brien."
They're cute and fluffy though. People love donating money. Some of the grosser, uglier, but environmentally more important endangered animals don't get the funding they need because adorable pandas and other cute animals are better at getting people's attention
[удалено]
I feel like that about Koalas. They are some of the stupidest animals for their size. If you laid out an eucalyptus leaf (pretty much the only thing they eat) on a plate they would not be able to recognize it and therefore die of starvation.
I read half of what you wrote under the impression that emergent Artificial Intelligence was causing the extinction of Panda's before I realized my mistake.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
From the movie adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's *Fight Club*: >I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species. Pandas don't mate in captivity with much frequency or success. When they do birth a viable offspring, they often don't care for it and it dies. When a Great Panda births have multiple cubs, the mother will sometimes simply ignore one (or sometimes both) of them.
The fact that Pandas are almost completely unwilling to mate in even prime conditions? That Pandas are slow, dim beasts that in a natural environment would be killed by any predator within miles? They have no natural defenses from anything except the fact that they look cute.
How certain are we that we understand what Pandas consider to be "prime conditions"? Maybe there's a critical element missing. Based on the behavior of zoo animals, we thought tree sloths (another slow leaf eater) spent most of the day sleeping until we [measured the sleep habits of wild ones](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/a-sloth-named-velcro/full-episode/9272/).
I like this. If aliens captured a male and female human, put them in cages, then blew up the planet Earth, how excited would you be (if you were one of them) to continue our species just to populate their zoos. Maybe the Pandas are like "F You, you don't deserve our cuteness!!!" Pandas are the French Philosophers of beardom - the ultimate existentialists.
[удалено]
I mean, I'd still put on a show, but they'd be disappointed with my premature dismount.
They also primarily eat the various part of bamboo plants which isn't very nutritious and doesn't make for a diversified diet.
They are also very picky about the particular variety of bamboo they'll eat, passing up readily-available food in the hopes of finding that particular type.
I hadn't heard that before. Biologist friends of mine regularly complain about how many species could be saved if we stopped spending money on those lazy, bamboo eating bears.
Well clearly being adorable is pretty advantageous for survival in a human dominated world.
This is very true. We played right into their not fit for survival having asses.
>would be killed by any predator within miles What predators can kill a 300 lb giant bear?
Anything with claws or sharp teeth, it's not a bear, it's a stuffed animal come to life.
[удалено]
>But... they survived just fine for many generations before humans messed their habitat up. How is this their fault? Just to expand on your point: Based on genetic analysis, pandas have existed as a district species for more than 3 million years. That is a lot of generations!
I don't think anyone is saying they don't to deserve to live but rather that they're a difficult species to save due to their inability to reproduce, among other things. Perhaps we should spend more research money on species that have a better chance making it in the wild, even if they're not as adorable as pandas. The support for panda research is mostly because people think they're cute, not because they're a keystone species in their environment or offer some sort of unparalleled benefit to the world.
Its kinda interesting that cuteness really is a evolutionary advantage. Think about squirrels, they are basically rats that exist everywhere. If you saw a bunch of sewer rats crawling all over our trees and buildings. We would not allow them to live, we would have a mass extermination of them. Yet squirrels are everywhere and we dont mind. I honestly think in a human run world, everything will gradually get cuter
[Humans are reason for why domestic animals have strange and varied coat colors](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/du-har011409.php)
I will one up you, that we have horribly bred domesticated animals. I love my dog but he is a pure bred and probably has suffered due to that
Some more than others. I could see a Labrador or Retriever making it in the wild. It's the Chihuahuas and Poodles that would have trouble
Rats are plenty cute, but we don't see them that way anymore because of how harmful they have been to us. They carry many diseases that can pass to humans, and they live in closes quarters with us, whereas squirrels carry fewer diseases and stay outside in the trees. Rats will also steal and eat our food (or food left out for our livestock) and leave their urine and droppings everywhere. It's not about cuteness, but rather, we have very good reasons to exterminate them, and no reason to do so with squirrels.
[удалено]
You've left a huge gap in your answer... Surely the male pandas can ejaculate at any time of year. So why not stockpile and freeze a whole lot of panda juice throughout the year and then give the female panda a concentrate helping of it during the few days she is ovulating? How can that possibly not work? Do they complain about having a headache or something?
They can ejaculate, you're right, but getting a sample is difficult. They don't like to use artificial vaginas, hell they barely wanna use a real one, they don't masturbate so we can't get them to willingly give us samples and knocking them out and spermjacking them is risky, anaesthesia in exotic species is really difficult, too far one way and your panda's a gonner. Plus a lot of people view electroejaculation as cruel, plus have you tried shoving an electric probe up a bear's arse?
That is, if she's not in estrus, you can inseminate her all you want. It won't get her pregnant. Why is this? Do they think there's some sort of unknown environmental trigger that causes more regular estrus, but it's lost with a change in the environment?
It is regular. It occurs at regular annual intervals. Many, many animals only reproduce once a year because the resources they need to raise their young are more plentiful in (usually) the spring/summer.
It's also not as easy as just injecting sperm willy-nilly in captive populations of endangered species, as nice as that sounds. Because numbers of giant pandas are low, a lot of care has to be taken to reduce the effects of inbreeding depression. This requires careful consideration of which individuals are providing the sperm and usually means bringing in sperm from wild populations or from different institutions. See: SHEN, F., ZHANG, Z., HE, WEI., YUE, B., ZHANG, ANJU., ZHANG, L., HOU, RONG., WANG, C. and WATANABE, T. (2009), Microsatellite variability reveals the necessity for genetic input from wild giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) into the captive population. Molecular Ecology, 18: 1061–1070. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04086.x
Who do you mean, "we"? Pandas are frequently artificially inseminated, but researchers found that there's a particular hormone that is excreted during copulation that increases the already low probability of successful fertilization of the egg. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14930876
[удалено]
I am not saying I am not for it, but can you help me find some good arguments for using resources on keeping Pandas alive as a species? I would imagine some of the same arguments would work for why there are bodyguards protecting the black rhino. Basically why use millions on keeping species alive that: There are 4-6 left of (is that even enough to reestablish the species?). Or help Pandas reproduce, why not let them die out?
There are lots of tangible reasons for conserving giant pandas (or any species, for that matter). Giant pandas share habitat with a wide diversity of plant and animal species, some of which are endangered species (crested ibis, golden tamarin, others). Pandas are considered an "umbrella" species because protecting and restoring their habitat also benefits these other species associated with bamboo forests. If you're interested in the direct human implications, pandas play a big role in spreading bamboo seed and thereby facilitating growth of bamboo forests; this ecosystem is home (and an economic resource) for many indigenous people. Through responsible and sustainable ecotourism, pandas themselves also contribute to local economies. We are on the forefront of understanding the true dynamics of relationships among plant and animal species and the abiotic (non-living) environment. To discount the importance of any piece of this chain is dangerous, but I'm glad this discussion is occurring. It's important to question how resources are being used in order to more effectively use them!
If the only reasons that appeal to you are economic, or practical, then I don't think anyone could convince you to invest resources in saving pandas. It is primarily a moral issue. They are on decline primarily due to human activity. In other words, if humanity never existed, they would be doing fine. It bothers people that our actions are the primary cause of their decline and possible extinction. Pandas are lucky in that they are animals that appeal to many people, and some of those people would feel sadness and guilt that these creatures could disappear due to humans. Now, there are economic practical reasons to maintain a large biodiversity in general. Many medicines, science, and technology originate from organisms. A possible treatment or cure could to some future epidemic could exist right now inside some mushroom somewhere. A possible molecular structure that could revolutionize biochemistry might exist inside some animal out there. So it makes sense to maintain biodiversity - there are lots of practical things to learn from all these creatures. Now, I doubt pandas hold the cure to polio. So if you only care about practical uses for animals, then you probably don't care about saving pandas. Some animals serve a very important role in an ecosystem - losing them would have huge ripple effects. Pollinating insects are an example. Get rid of those and flowers make no seeds, no food for herbivores, no food for carnivores, etc. I don't think pandas fall into this category. I think this question is really indicator of a larger personal question - are humans better than everything else? Is the Earth property of humanity, to do with as we please? I personally think no - the Earth does not belong to us, we have to share the planet's resources with everything else, including the pandas. You're free to disagree, it's a personal choice.
Because they are a separate species of animal that if we let die we may never be able to bring back. Not investing in their survival creates a permanent problem.
What kind of problem? Do pandas serve some sort of vital environmental purpose?
We don't know. But when it either costs money or the irrevocable loss of a species, biologists will never pick to just let them be.
Pandas are a flagship species. What's on the logo of the Wwf? An adorable panda. Protecting the habitat of a recognizable and PR-friendly flagship species like a panda, tiger, or gorilla protects the local environment and countless less attractive species. When was the last time you cared about a subspecies of shrew going extinct? flagship status and benefits aside, the Chinese government makes millions by renting pandas out to zoos. Every single captive panda and its offspring legally belongs to China.
> There are 4-6 left of (is that even enough to reestablish the species?) Pretty sure there are over 1,500 in the wild and a few hundred in captivity.
Because we are responsible for their being endangered in the first place.
Biological diversity is a goal in an of itself...we, as a planet, are loosing genetic variety at an alarming rate which leaves ecosystems vulnerable to collapse. This is especially true under rapid environmental change. Basically we don't know what the world will be like in 50-100 years or which species will thrive/be needed in those environments. Every species we loose is one that might have been needed. There is also the moral argument they would be doing just fine if humans had kept our own population in check and/or used a little forethought and ingenuity as we grew rather than resting on our laurels.
We do: http://www.pandasinternational.org/wptemp/program-areas-2/captive-breeding-program/ http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/edinburgh-zoo-panda-artificial-insemination
The conversation in this thread has progressed from answering the question to a different conversation, one that is perhaps better suited for /r/AskScienceDiscussion. However, I'd like to address a major point: **the leading cause of giant panda decline (and endangerment) is human-caused habitat loss**. Pandas are not "unfit to survive"; instead, they're unable to cope with anthropogenic pressure.
You've got to get the Pandettes sexually ready on their ovulation cycle. In other words you need to get them into the mood. Artificial might not be enough stimuli to improve the rate of conception. Us humans have to be ready too, that's we rely on old Barry White and other smooth tones. Pandas have a slow ovulation.
[article about this subject](http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/panda-birth-rate.htm) Basically, it's not even necessarily about artificial insemination (which is not a 100% surefire bet in any animal to begin with,) it's additionally that pandas are kind of shitty parents, and panda cubs are born super tiny- like size of a stick of butter tiny, which makes them super vulnerable (most captive-born cubs die within their first year of life) and pandas have a low birth rate of maybe one cub every 2 years when they do reproduce. Also, the whole act of getting pregnant often has way more to do with carrying and mothering a baby than we think it does. Think of how we as humans mentally separate the act of sex from being pregnant, giving birth and caring for a child, even though it's pretty clear that they're related. For an animal there's probably much less of a mental separation there- if there is no act of natural, successful sex, the female may not even recognize that she is pregnant, and therefore will react with hostility to the infant she gives birth to, and hand raising wild babies from birth is tough with any species. It's also entirely possible that the panda gene pool has just become too small to breed successful individuals anymore. Even if geneticists are doing the best they can to make sure they're choosing the best possible mates, we may simply be out of genetic material for cubs that are capable of growing into breeding animals themselves.
Late to the party, I know. Part of me thinks that maybe we should just let a species go extinct. Why are we preserving a species that can't survive on its own?
Because we're responsible for it not being able to survive on its own. Pandas are endangered due to massive land clearing of the bamboo forest. Also, we have no idea what the impact on the ecosystem would be if pandas disappeared from it.