Results, Poll #23, Pandas.
Not too long ago, myself and 3 others were out at dinner. The subject of pandas came up, mostly from the stories out of China that they were in trouble b/c of limited access to their favorite food, bamboo (due to the earthquake there). I wondered aloud what would change for us on a daily basis if the pandas were extinct (or any other animal). I don't even know that I've seen a panda at any zoo and certainly not in the wild. Of course, I have been to the zoo tons of times and really like them to this day (shout out to the LPZ polar bears!). Well, someone a bit wiser than me on this topic happened to say that I wasn't really looking at it the right way. A more accurate method would be to ask someone how much they would pay to keep pandas alive forever. Even if it's only $20/person, you take all that money from each of Earth's inhabitants and then keep adding each successive generations contribution... basically to infinity. You'd wind up with a good amount of money going on forever. This presumes, correctly I feel, that every other generation to come would pay money to keep pandas alive too. Of course, you have to have these funds available for all endangered animals, not just pandas (right?).
[awww, cute!!!]In any case, from the poll, I believe that the animals are safe:> 4 people (25%) chose that they would pay $100 to help the pandas - this is nice, make the checks payable to "Transplanted Chicagoan".> 10 people (62%) chose that they could afford something less than the $100 for the pandas - this is the overwhelming majority (which is kind of rare on the polls) and I think speaks most accurately to what the American (world) public would be willing to spend. It would be interesting to make the poll $20 instead of $100 and see what the response is then.> 0 people chose that the pandas aren't worth saving - good news if you're a panda (and can read) or work with pandas.> 2 people (12%) chose that the choices didn't reflect their choice - well, I can't please everyone. But I would be interested in knowing what these two people wanted to choose - anyone?Thanks for the voting, new poll up now. (I lifted the idea from a fellow blogger)
transplanted.chicagoan
powered by .mk.
1 comment:
Not to diss on the panda, but if it weren't for those big pretty eyes, they'd be extinct already. I've heard that the biggest issue with panda survival is that they reproduce poorly. They can only make one little panda baby every two years. And, according to Wikipedia, they lose their interest in reproduction when they're in captivity, which has led to some great experiments in panda research like showing "panda porn" videos to them and giving the males Viagra. More typically, they artificially inseminate the females to force them to reproduce.
And then there's the fact that it's a massive animal that's decided it will only eat one type of food. Now, I'm not saying pandas aren't cute, but if a species is so bent on its own extinction, is that really the animal you want to be throwing your $100 at?
PS--I have a feeling that panda preservation is pretty well funded already. Why not use your $100 to ... oh, say... buy mosquito nets and malaria medication through an African charity?
Post a Comment