by Rebecca Nesbit, Press Officer at the Society of Biology
This week I added a poll to the Society of Biology website in honour of our upcoming debate during Biology Week: ‘should we save the panda?’. I admit I haven’t yet voted, because I don’t know what to say.
If I look at the question from a purely scientific point of view the answer is a clear no. We only have limited resources for conservation and we should perhaps focus them on species which either are essential to the ecosystem they inhabit (such as being a food source for other species) or benefit humans directly (such as pollinating our crops or stabilising sand dunes which are flood defences).
Basically – cute and cuddly doesn’t mean ecologically valuable.
But ecological value isn’t all that matters. What shouldn’t be underestimated is the impact of wildlife on human health, both physical and mental.
I recently reviewed The Value of Species by Edward McCord for The Biologist. I wasn’t completely convinced by his arguments because, like it or not, we do have to make choices, but he made a relevant point.
Some species will never provide economic benefit, but he believes nature is so fascinating that all species are worthy of protection. Curiosity is fundamental to our consciousness and sparks our appreciation of other species. If we lost this what would it mean for human existence?
I’d be really interested to hear everyone’s thoughts, in the comments below or by email, and you can send me questions to put to the panellists or come along in person.
The questions I’m asking myself are:
Is it a problem if the panda survives only in the zoo? Most of us will never see one in the wild, and if ‘because we love them’ is our reason for acting, then perhaps captivity is good enough.
Is beauty important when choosing what to save? Should conservationists be trying to increase the street cred of ‘uglier animals’. I know one who is… check out panellist Simon Watt’s Ugly Animal Appreciation Society.
If we are genuinely keen to prioritise species because we like them, should we protect some invasive species rather then try to eliminate them?
Connected to these, I have already blogged about whether conservation is about protecting humans or whether biodiversity is intrinsically valuable.
Thanks in advance for all your comments.
Why save Pandas? All they do is eat bamboo, if they die out the only thing that will change is the amount of bamboo that grows in countries where they roam free. Also they are difficult to breed as the female is only in ovulation once every 2 years, and the male is never interested.
Good point: not only do we question what is worth saving, but also what we want to destroy. Diseases and parasites especially.
It’s alwasy hard to know what the knock-on effects will be or what great discoveries we may be missing by driving a potentially harmful species to extinction. I know this is taking a bit of step away from pandas but it does make me think of bio control and how trying to get rid of one ‘pest species’ can lead to the release of another. And often when humans do things they think will make things better things actually turn out worse. Eg reducing forest fire in National parks leading to some trees not being able to germinate. Or removing wolves and beavers which had knock-on effects to the entire ecosystem.
But does that mean we shouldn’t even try? It’s a huge debate which all stems back to how much control should humans try to enforce on how our planet is. Should we just try to negate our own negative impacts (pollution and destruction of habitats for example)? Or should we be trying to save or destroy specific species? Or should we just back off and do nothing?
Thanks for everyone’s really interesting comments. Clive has just raised I point I also swing backwards and forwards on in my head. Should we save Anopholes spp. (the genus of mozzies which transmit malaria)? If a species is causing human suffering, would it be right to treat it like smallpox and try to drive it towards extinction?
Like Zara, I wobble back and forth. Argument 1 – “the no man is an island” view. Everything has an intrinsic value and we should preserve it (even Anopheles), but then just because it’s pretty doesn’t mean pandas are worth more than the flu virus. Argument 2 – value to humans. Is there an economic value to be attached? Tourism obviously with pandas; but there are probably fewer exciting chemical discoveries to be made from a large furry mammal than from something like a mosquito.
Would we be lessened by losing them? Yes, we would have a clear indication of what we are doing to the world. When the last wild tiger or panda dies out – like the last thylacine – we would have to face the fact of how we damage the earth. So in that sense losing such a high profile species might be more valuable than keeping it.
Is the panda more important than growing food for our burgeoning population? Well I’d say yes, but then if the choice came to losing brown bears or wolves so we could feed our population safely would I make a different choice? We’ve lost the big species in Britain, we’ve lost the large forests; yet now we think we can pontificate on environment degradation elsewhere.
So in short – don’t know. Except … I know the world would be a poorer place without such an animal.
I voted yes to saving the panda for several reasons. Firstly by focusing people’s attention on saving a cute, cuddly animal we are actually putting money into saving entire ecosystems, setting up eco tourism that brings money into the region as well as actually helping the pandas. Pandas themselves are then useful in politics (panda diplomacy) when the Chinese government loan pandas to countries as part of diplomacy whilst also making more money for conservation. (US zoos will only pay the $1000 000 for the loan of a panda if half of that money goes to conservation.) Then there’s the fact that pandas aren’t actually as bad off as was previously thought. Better sampling techniques suggest there are higher numbers in the wild than was thought and that they have good genetic diversity.
Finally panda poo is also useful. Not only can it be made into merchandise (panda poo paper!!) but the microbes in it may be useful for breaking down waste (a discovery that won an Ig Nobel prize in 2009).
So Pandas are useful, charismatic and not as doomed as we thought. We should continue to focus on their conservation, and thus on conserving and helping other plants and animals sharing their habitat,
I believe we should do everything we can to save every animal. I agree with Michael–all species have value, whether or not we can see the link to human survival. Surely pandas aren’t the only species living in panda habitat. And humans have a long history of being wrong; we don’t really know what the panda or any other animal does for this world. Save the panda!
The saving of the Panda is seen as a noble gesture. It is actually the conduit for much other conservation. Like the beat of a butterfly wings in in chaos theory. Maybe in some as yet unknown relationship the panda is paramount in the long term to our own species survival.
Whenever conservation comes down to economics as a key driver. I get quite worried about the ethical direction that conservation is moving. There will be as many opinions a there are people who will take part in the debate. A consensus and an agreed strategy will hopefully be formulated.
But like climate change I think the debate will continue for some time to come.
Thanks for the interesting comment Stephanie. Does that mean the question should really be ‘should we save the panda’s habitat’?
Perhaps the resources dedicated to captive breeding programmes are less good use of resources if the population will survive in the wild if we protect their habitat?
I’m not sure the question is right? “Should we save the panda?” implies that humans have a divine switch whether to keep this species extant or extinguish it forever.
If the answer were simply ‘no’ to this question and pandas were to become extinct tomorrow, then humans would have a hard time actually killing off every single panda that exists currently. Although there are not many pandas from the last recording (about 1500-1600) they live over 6-8 mountain ranges in China and live in extremely rough and remote terrain. Mountainous, damp, wet and quiet. So it would be hard to kill them off due to the terrain, and also their shy, sensitive nature.
Giant pandas have also been a species for about 9 million years and have bred successfully. Humans had nothing to do with the ‘saving’ of the pandas during this time. They did it themselves! Well done them!
Many of the arguments against ‘saving’ the panda involve their minimal breeding season, large quantities of bamboo they require, sleeping all day and ‘lack of function’ to the environment.
The explanations to these reasons stem from the pandas evolution. Giant pandas have lived in plentiful bamboo forests for hundreds of years, and during this time they have evolved to eat mainly bamboo. It is this food resource that makes them sleepy as it is hard to digest. Maybe the panda had to evolve to eat something different due to food competition millions of years ago and it found a solution- bamboo, and it worked. Why should they eat more? It works. Giant pandas also have to eat large quantities of bamboo a day to obtain energy from it but this should not be a reason not to ‘save’ them. As for a panda reproduction, when it comes to mating although the breeding season is only 1-3 days a year wild pandas increase the quality of their sperm to help in conception and it is thought that wild pandas are more successful at conceiving than captive pandas. Pandas don’t need to have a longer breeding season because in the past having a short one has worked. It is only now that much of the pandas natural habitat has been cleared and the occurrence of forest fragmentation that the pandas have declined. As for the last argument, pandas do help in fertilising the soil where they live and if you compare humans and our ‘function’ on the environment then we are far more destructive than pandas ever could be.
So in conclusion if the answer is ‘no’ then pandas will probably live on for a good number of years before they actually become extinct. Remember they are a successful species. If the answer is ‘yes’ then we will be saving vital green space that the planet needs regardless of whatever other species shares a territory with the Giant Panda. (The snow leopard being one of them).
Thanks- sorry if I waffled.
I haven’t voted yet, I’ve been changing my mind on a daily basis!