Top 10 Reasons Not To Visit Europe’s “Top Ten Zoos"

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason is in the second half of that sentence if it is too complicated for you let me know and I'll simplify for you. Pandas are their own worst enemy having such a specialist diet, not breeding well and just being a bit dim. Pandas don't suffer the same threats as other endangered animals such as hunting and poaching for the pet trade, China shoots those who directly harm pandas. Although they do suffer from deforestation
 
monkeyarmy said:
The reason is in the second half of that sentence if it is too complicated for you let me know and I'll simplify for you. Pandas are their own worst enemy having such a specialist diet, not breeding well and just being a bit dim. Pandas don't suffer the same threats as other endangered animals such as hunting and poaching for the pet trade, China shoots those who directly harm pandas. Although they do suffer from deforestation
Click to expand...

So... what's your point exactly?
Evolution is telling pandas that they're very picky eaters and rather stupid but it's ok because the Chinese government is protecting them? I don't get it...
 
The more specialist your diet/environmental/mating etc the harder it is to survive, therefore the pandas move from carnivore to eating one part of one plant it is making it harder for pandas to survive.

We should focus on the species that are fighting to survive but are being wholly screwed by humans
 
monkeyarmy said:
The more specialist your diet/environmental/mating etc the harder it is to survive, therefore the pandas move from carnivore to eating one part of one plant it is making it harder for pandas to survive.

We should focus on the species that are fighting to survive but are being wholly screwed by humans
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're saying that it's Pandas' own fault if they go extinct because evolution made their diet difficult. So we should forget about all of those species and only save species that are only affected directly by humans.

That's quite ridiculous because humans are affecting all species all around the world and deforestation etc. is causing Pandas to become endangered. Note: I do realise that there are many species more in need of human help than pandas and I know what you are saying about a specialist diet but I don't see how it relates to your argument. In fact, what point are you actually arguing for or against?
 
We should have priority list those most likely to survive at the top. It shouldn't be that way but the harsh reality is until the human race makes radical changes how we live and therefore impact animals habitats it has to be that way. Or a mass cull of humans.
 
monkeyarmy said:
We should have priority list those most likely to survive at the top. It shouldn't be that way but the harsh reality is until the human race makes radical changes how we live and therefore impact animals habitats it has to be that way. Or a mass cull of humans.
Click to expand...

I get what you are suggesting now but I can't agree. All efforts have to be made to save a species and the fact that it requires special conditions to survive shouldn't mean we just give up.

To quote Gerald Durrell:
8df6610947e465717d50a7159ae8b0e3.jpg
 
monkeyarmy said:
Polar bears live on ice and swim in freezing seas, whilst other bears deal with these conditions seasonlly, only the polar bears are adapted to live in these conditions consistently. So a zoo in a hot climate is going to struggle much more to meet the polar bears needs than a zoo in Norway or other freezing temperatures
Click to expand...

You don't know much about Polar Bears do you? Half the year they live in warm flowery, heathland type habitat. For example tenperatures in Kingussie aren't far of summer temperatures in Svalbard, so I don't think that's a valid point. I agree they shouldn't be kept in warm climates. But what about places in Finland for example that keep them, they're in a similar climate again.

Arctic Summer: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/30/article-2020442-0D3614BE00000578-690_964x643.jpg

Yorkshire Wildlife Park: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/18/1408362515795_wps_33_Picture_Shows_Victor_The_.jpg
 
LaughingDove said:
I say bottlenose in particular because they are a smaller species so enclosure sizes are more reasonable. They also have a significant population in captivity that could potentially be maintained by captive breeding without (further) captures from the wild being necessary.
Click to expand...

3m average BL isn't actually small, especially in relation to porpoises, Commerson dolphins etc. The enclosure size is also related to the activity of the animals and Turpois are quite active animals. Nevertheless, I agree with you, though, that they are one of the ceatacea species currently doing better in captivity. However, I wouldn't see them as the only cetacea species doing well in captivity.
 
monkeyarmy said:
The more specialist your diet/environmental/mating etc the harder it is to survive, therefore the pandas move from carnivore to eating one part of one plant it is making it harder for pandas to survive.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of langur species are solely folivorous, which is a pretty specialised diet - reckon we should leave those to go extinct too? :p Or do they get a break because they are monkeys and you like those?
 
They don't just eat one part of one plant though so not as specialist as pandas, langurs have also adapted to eat other stuff including unripe fruit, dry rubber seeds and other leaves. The only species I want become extinct are humans but as that is unlikely to happen and most of us value are luxuries and comfortable lifestyles too much to change to lesson our impact on the environment we have to choose those that have the best chance of survival.
 
In a way I agree pandas aren't the most in need, but I think we should still try to save them, although I think we need to put more money into other species, as pandas get a lot of money.
 
monkeyarmy said:
The only species I want become extinct are humans but as that is unlikely to happen and most of us value are luxuries and comfortable lifestyles too much to change to lesson our impact on the environment we have to choose those that have the best chance of survival.
Click to expand...

What a charming form of misanthropic self-loathing. Very mature, indeed. Shouldn't the next logical step be to take yourself out of the human population, by any means possible? Or are you too attached to the luxury of living to lessen your environmental impact for good?

Even though Giant Pandas prefer to eat 25 species or so of bamboo, they also eat small animals, eggs etc. when available. Nutritional specialisation is no "reason" to wipe out (or "let die out in peace") a species.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monkeyarmy said:
They don't just eat one part of one plant though so not as specialist as pandas, langurs have also adapted to eat other stuff including unripe fruit, dry rubber seeds and other leaves. The only species I want become extinct are humans but as that is unlikely to happen and most of us value are luxuries and comfortable lifestyles too much to change to lesson our impact on the environment we have to choose those that have the best chance of survival.
Click to expand...

So your never going to have children (or if you have, your a bit hypercritical)?
 
I'm a vegan, who doesn't drive and grow my own fruit and veg so I have minimal impact. I would take myself out but I own my social enterprise cleaning up after humans and our obsession with keeping exotic animals as pets. I also don't loath myself. I just have a realist view as a species, if you can show me humans have done more good than harm I'll change my view.

Nope no children too many people in the world and lots of kids needing adopting
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monkeyarmy said:
I'm a vegan, who doesn't drive and grow my own fruit and veg so I have minimal impact. I would take myself out but I own my social enterprise cleaning up after humans and our obsession with keeping exotic animals as pets. I also don't loath myself. I just have a realist view as a species, if you can show me humans have done more good than harm I'll change my view.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but by being a member of the First World (UK being part of that) with obvious plenty of access to a computer, your impact isn't minimal. "(...)own my social enterprise cleaning up" Half-baked elusion and self-deception. You won't solve any omninous "obsession" by being obsessive yourself. A true realist would realize that humans (some at least) are the only species willing to waste their time by wallowing in self-hate, and reject that motion immediately. Loathing humans while being a human yourself is just dreadfully pointless and infantile.

Has your own family and social surrounding been so bad to you that you have never learned the goodness of healthy benevolent human social interaction? Human altruism, even beyond species? Human creativity? Human playfulness?... What a dull, sad little existence. If so, you shouldn't adopt anyone. Or anything...
 
My existence isn't sad or dull. I also don't hate humans I just think our existence has a massively negative effect on those we share the earth with.

If you can find where I said I hate humans I'll eat my fungal toe.

I enjoy being alive I just know that me existing is detrimental to our environment
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is very off topic, even for a thread which was created due to a different thread becoming off topic, I think this needs locking or having some posts deleted. As this isn't called 'My Hippy Beliefs' or 'Why Giant Pandas Have To Die'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top