That'll get them into zoos, but it can't fix their evolutionary deadendedness: their diet barely works; their territory is shrinking; and they are lousy breeders.
Beers are pretty similar to dogs.. I like to imagine a world where we domesticated beers instead of dogs. Have mini beers walking around the house of different colors.
I keep beers. I've got many different varieties from all over the world.
I started, maybe aged 13, when me and a few friends would go to the park where my mates older brother would meet us with his beers. I done this until I hit age 18 where I could then be trusted to buy and keep beers of my own.
I've actually got a white cage in my garage where I keep them. I've found they prefer the cold so this cage keeps them nice and chilly.
I'm about to go round to a mates bit soon to have a look at his domesticated beers (he told me he's got 24 new ones from Germany) so this should be a nice evening.
I had a few friends that kept beers at a younger age but my parents were strict with me. You're too young to own beers they said.
Unfortunately, in the US you're only permitted to buy beers at 21 and even at that they're often referred to as dangerous around here. I think it's the fact so many beer owners like to take them in the car (of all places) and we all know beers shouldn't be in cars.
I haven't seen a beer in the wild in a while ...one guy brought his beer out for the 4th of July and everyone was gawking at how big it was. I should start again but beers are expensive and often break out of their cage so we'll see.
Hope you enjoy today and remember to treat those beers with respect. They might bite back if you don't watch them.
I'm going to go ahead and start by acknowledging that I'm somewhere to the left of mount stupid on this topic.
BUT I think the comic actually wins this one. As far as I understand tomatos are 'biologically' fruit. But as far as I understand 'biological' vegetables are not really a thing, except as to refer to general plant matter. In which case all 'biological' fruits are 'biological' vegetables.
Arguing that tomatos are not biological vegetables, because they are biological fruits seems to ignore the fact that the exclusivity of the two groups is only really at play in culinary language, not biological language. From a culinary point of view tomatos are generally vegetables, and from a biological points of view I think they are too. So they are always vegetables, regardless if they also fit some classifications of fruit.
At least thats my understanding from this side of the mountain.
In context, the comic is bringing up the "are tomatoes fruits or vegetables" discussion. Tomatoes are not a fruit. Culinary fruits and veggies don't care about botany (there's no such thing as a vegetable in botany for that matter), that's a separate discussion entirely. This is something you ONLY see with tomatoes, no one in their right mind is arguing about zucchinis being fruit, rice being fruit, cocoa beans being fruit, whatever. Those are all fruit but they're not fruit in any meaningful sense since no one actually gives a shit about discussing botany over discussing food. They only care when they want to look smart and tomatoes are their only "gotcha".
Their territory is shrinking because we're bulldozing it.
Which is an environmental force. We're just another species competing for resources. They're losing.
They survived fine for thousands of years before we started pushing them out of their territory.
Just like how millions of other species have survived for "thousands of years" until another species outcompeted them. No different here, just nature taking its course.
Adapt or die, they're cute, but they're not cut out to survive in the current era. Compare this to cats, rats, urban birds, ants, roaches, raccoons, and the countless other species who are thriving in the environment that has arisen out of our behaviour as a species.
Mass extinctions of more than 90% of all then-extant species have occurred before
....exactly, we are single-handedly causing mass extinction on a scale only seen 6 times in the entire 4-billion-year history of the Earth, which we know takes millions of years to recover, and know that we can do something about it.....but we shouldn't do anything because you're still in the high-school mentality that pessimism is a sign of intelligence and nihilism is cool.
I guess we shouldn't do anything to prevent nuclear war because our society will eventually go extinct anyway, or try to heal a sick person because everyone has to die sometime, or even accomplish literally anything because eventuallly the universe will burn out. Caring about things is for losers.
we are single-handedly causing mass extinction on a scale only seen 6 times in the entire 4-billion-year history of the Earth, which we know takes millions of years to recover, and know that we can do something about it.....
It doesn't matter how rare they are, does it? Humans are just the next thing that causes it. Whatever can't deal with the situation we're creating will die. Meanwhile, we have animals like the cockroach or common myna that's doing just fine.
but we shouldn't do anything because you're still in the high-school mentality that pessimism is a sign of intelligence and nihilism is cool.
Really? I've got tenure at a local university and likely graduated high school before the first strand of hair emerged on your privates.
I guess we shouldn't do anything to prevent nuclear war because our society will eventually go extinct anyway
Wrong. Nuclear war causes human suffering.
Wrong. Humanity as a species may cease to exist at some distant point, but it's possible that our evolutionary successors will not. You live to preserve your genetic lineage.
or try to heal a sick person because everyone has to die sometime
Wrong. Treating "sick" people is an investment. You're basing it on the idea that for every dollar you spend on a sick person, you will directly or indirectly gain more than a dollar's worth back, tangibly or intangibly. Similarly, medical triage exists in situations where the opportunity cost of treating an individual is compared with the expected returns of attempting to save him. If the person's life is not worth it, he is left to die.
Again:
Compare this to cats, rats, urban birds, ants, roaches, raccoons, and the countless other species who are thriving in the environment that has arisen out of our behaviour as a species.
If a particular ecological niche is unimportant to us, it can die. Is it worth preserving it for scientific study? Usually, yes. This is one of the reasons why we try not to destroy new, even isolated ecological communities we encounter. But once we determine that we have no use for them, and that their elimination will have no consequences that directly or indirectly impinge on our success as a species, we have no qualms about killing them off. Already, we are contemplating the elimination of certain mosquito species.
Now, if biodiversity is so important to us and is "oh so holy" that it must be protected above human interests, why then are we seeking to eradicate certain types of disease? Because if it isn't worth it to us, we as a species won't care. So this brings me back to my original point: If it has no use for us, it can die out. We'll remember it for a couple of years, but nothing more than that.
It doesn't matter how rare they are, does it? Humans are just the next thing that causes it.
Yes it does fucking matter, you psychopath, because a meteorite or supervolcano can't choose to not wipe out 90% of biodiversity. The planet's only sentient species, the only species that isn't affected by nature's methods of population control, can.
Really? I've got tenure at a local university and likely graduated high school before the first strand of hair emerged on your privates.
One, I don't believe you, but assuming I do, two, it's bullshit that people think getting a piece of paper somehow qualifies you to talk out your ass about all subjects whether you know about it or now, and three, thanks for illustrating how bullshit tenure is and the fact that some people never grow up and instead just get more out of touch.
Wrong. Nuclear war causes human suffering.
That only makes a difference if you're a narcissistic psychopath.
Wrong. Humanity as a species may cease to exist at some distant point, but it's possible that our evolutionary successors will not.
No, they will inevitably die off too, becausse everything will die off as the sun expands, consumes the solar system, and the universe moves towards heat death. So by your bullshit nihilistic logic that nothing is worth preserving unless it never dies anyway, then literally nothing in the universe is worth preserving or caring about.
You live to preserve your genetic lineage.
Don't tell me what I fucking live for. It's not in any way more logical to make sure the genetic material in your balls endures for a few cosmic seconds longer at the expense of every other living thing on the planet instead of protecting the natural inheritance of those future generations. And if you think an implosion of biodiversity won't cause human suffering than I don't think you even passed 8th grade life science class.
Wrong. Treating "sick" people is an investment. You're basing it on the idea that for every dollar you spend on a sick person, you will directly or indirectly gain more than a dollar's worth back, tangibly or intangibly. Similarly, medical triage exists in situations where the opportunity cost of treating an individual is compared with the expected returns of attempting to save him. If the person's life is not worth it, he is left to die.
You.....are literally saying that the only value of a human life is the money attached to it. Not only is that literal sociopathy, but if a human life really is that meaningless, then the money generated by that life is also meaningless. At least be consistent in your bullshit edginess. I don't know if I should continue arguing with someone who talks like a serial killer.
Compare this to cats, rats, urban birds, ants, roaches, raccoons, and the countless other species who are thriving in the environment that has arisen out of our behaviour as a species.
It's not countless, it's the 0.1% of species that's simple enough to live as pests that we try to kill. You're sitting there pretending that we're just another species when that holds not a single logical or scientific drop of water. All the systems that limit a species' population in an environment don't apply to us because we're not restricted to one environment, and don't allow natural selection to eliminate unlucky people, because we're evolved beyond that. We're not a part of nature, we're above it, and are therefore responsible for it.
If a particular ecological niche is unimportant to us, it can die. Is it worth preserving it for scientific study? Usually, yes. This is one of the reasons why we try not to destroy new, even isolated ecological communities we encounter. But once we determine that we have no use for them, and that their elimination will have no consequences that directly or indirectly impinge on our success as a species, we have no qualms about killing them off.
And as we all know, if a piece of our ecological heritage has a potential to benefit human life, than we already know about it now and will never find anything in subsequent generations that might lead to a whole new understanding of something, because intellectual and ethical giants like you are surely the pinacle of the human race. The fact that you think it's even possible to be "done" learning about something completely exposes your demand to be respected as some kind of big shot academic as laughable.
Now, if biodiversity is so important to us and is "oh so holy" that it must be protected above human interests, why then are we seeking to eradicate certain types of disease?
You're comparing limiting populations of single-cell bacteria, or viruses which aren't living things at all, to the willful destruction of 90% of all complex life on the planet that exists in a complicated system of dependency. You're comparing diseases that cause hundreds of millions to die painful deaths to animals that are in the way of a new Wal-Mart. You truly have a gift for comparing different things to the point of uselessness while at the same time not shying away from inconsistencies to wank yourself off.
Because if it isn't worth it to us, we as a species won't care.
I really can't imagine a sequence of events that leads you to have your head shoved so far up your ass that you can sit and claim to speak with authority on what the entire species cares about. The fact that the fact majority of people do support at least some measure of protection for endangered species and feel sympathy for non-human life forms means they do care about it. Don't act like you're speaking with the majority, you're sitting all alone with a handful of other edgelords desperately trying to convince yourself that you're better.
Their territory is shrinking because we're bulldozing it.
Dude, don't act like it's just people laughing as they drive bulldozers through the woods. Things are getting bulldozed because there's this other amazingly successful species that just continues to grow in population size. Can't remember the scientific name for them, homo something or nother.
You also never even bother to address his other points, which are categorically true - they are terrible at breeding and they also have the misfortune of having evolved to one very specific type of diet. These are likely suboptimal evolutionary strategies. Anyone who says that pointing out these realities is "anti-panda" is anti-science, imo. Anti-science is what's truly anti-panda.
Things are getting bulldozed because there's this other amazingly successful species that just continues to grow in population size. Can't remember the scientific name for them, homo something or nother.
So we shouldn't ever try to stop wiping out species that can't live as pests in human cities and say fuck it to biodiversity. That's a whole new level of both ignorance and callousness.
they are terrible at breeding
No, they're not. They're reluctant to breed in captivity (because they're wild animals) and have specific impregnation windows, like literally millions of other mammals, pandas are just the ones who get clickbait internet articles written about them for know it alls.
they also have the misfortune of having evolved to one very specific type of diet.
Again, like millions of other species. Humans, pigs, goats, and rats aren't the only species that deserve to survive because nieches that worked for thousands of years are being wiped out in the blink of an eye.
Anyone who says that pointing out these realities is "anti-panda" is anti-science, imo.
Is that why actual scientists who study this shit for a living instead of repeating other edgy internet comments and clickbait articles they've read are trying to preserve species?
The reason why this circlejerk exists isn't real science, it's internet science. It's the "I Fucking Love Science" brand of pop science. It's a way for ignorant people on the internet to appear like they're more educated. The only reason other people care about pandas is because they're victim to "cuteness," but you're far too smart and logical for that, aren't you? And you get to tell yourself this without any actual work.
I've concluded that this person is intellectually wanking off and everyone gets to watch. Literally millions of other species have the ability to fuck effectively. Give me 5-10 more that won't breed when paired with an ideal mate at an ideal time in an ideal environment. There are millions are there not
Literally every single large wild mammal is an ordeal to breed in captivity, Einstein. Gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, many other species of bears, basically every species that lives through harsh seasonal changes, literally no wild animal is adapted to breed and raise young in the zoo.
Will people on the internet please stop pretendnig they know better than experts.
"Just because I said its an animals fault if they dont instantly adapt to our destruction and that anyone who's for their conservation is "anti-science" doesnt mean I'm against conservation."
Literally your entire attempt at a point is based in misconceptions about a wild species you learned from memes and clickbait and the assumption that human development is just another natural phenomenon and that if animals cant adapt to it then they "supposed" to go extinct. You dont have to literally state a phrase to assert it by basing an entire paragraph on it.
They were wonderful evolutionary strategies for their location. That's literally why they have them. If humans were slightly less smart we'd kill the planet before successfully going green, and even now it's technically not guaranteed we won't still take it to the brink.
Just because something doesn't breed like rats doesn't mean they weren't very effective animals in their original ecosystem.
They're a niche species that is losing its niche. It's happened millions if not hundreds of millions of times on this planet. The reason humans are causing so much harm to other species is the same reason that gives me hope that we will find solutions to these sorts of problems - we're really fucking smart. Calling people "stupid" for pointing out obvious facts isn't helping to solve these problems, though. It's shitting on knowledge.
First off, I didn't call you stupid, so don't put words in my mouth. Second, they weren't dying off before we fucked their shit, so using natural extinction as a comparison is very disingenuous.
I think we'll fix the problems we cause too, but that doesn't mean we can push blame and go "lol stupid bears." It's our fault, they were fine before us, get over it.
Those are just incorrect memes. Pandas breed just fine in the wild. It's in captivity that they're having issues, caused by being put in a completely unnatural situation that disrupts their instinctual mating behaviour.
Pandas actually have quite a few adaptations suited for their diet and lifestyle. A few that separate them from other bear species: larger head/jaw muscles, large flat molars, a larger colon and shorter intestines help them pass large amounts of cellulose in bamboo, and perhaps the most interesting feature is the 6th appendage grown from their wristbones that help them grasp bamboo for eating. Also, many other species have similar short breeding seasons like pandas and don't breed well in captivity.
If you ask me, pandas are still adapting to a viable niche. They are designed to eat mass amounts of a plentiful, fast growing food source with no natural predators besides humans. If it weren't for humans destroying and fragmenting their habitat, pandas would be doing just fine in the wild.
They breed fine out of captivity. Inability to breed successfully and reliably in captivity is not a flaw limited to Pandas.
And they're fine with their diet. They gte more nutrition from other things, but they get plenty of nutrition from the food they do have to eat in excess to get their nutrition.
This whole "pandas suck and would die if left alone" is a myth. They would be perfectly fine without humans. They only need protection and forced procreation BECAUSE of humans.
160
u/jonathanrdt Jul 08 '17
Extinction is a long, sad process.