Has anyone ever noticed that the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) only saves cute animals? Let’s think, the last three animals I’ve heard of the WWF trying to help have been the black bears in Ontario, the seals on the northeastern coast, and the pandas in China. Only the latter is an endangered species.
There’s no question it was because the seals were cute. The seal hunt was stopped a few years ago, and since then the seals have become overpopulated. The same goes for the bears. They stayed back in the forests and didn’t bother anyone before the spring bear hunt was stopped. Now they get into the garbage at my grandparents’ house in rural Ontario. My grandfather had to shoot one last year, as it was becoming a danger.
Don’t even get me started on the pandas…
Everyone knows that the panda is the mascot of the WWF. People know that pandas are both cute and severely endangered, but that’s about all they generally know.
I can honestly say that the panda is the most inefficient species I’ve ever known. (Before I continue, I’ll allow you to check the sources: eating mating ). This 250 lb bear eats a diet consisting of almost entirely bamboo. This is a problem for three major reasons:
Bamboo is low in nutrition.
The panda cannot entirely digest bamboo, so most of it passes through their digestive system without being utilized. These first two points are the reason that the bear needs to eat 40 lb of the plant a day. It spends up to twelve hours a day eating.
Bamboo is often difficult to find, because it doesn’t grow just anywhere. It has become very rare, and therefore the pandas are starving.
As if the bear’s eating habits didn’t make it inefficient enough already, let’s consider the mating habits of the panda. Pandas are shy, solitary creatures that come together to mate for only three days out of the year. Often, these three days are not enough to impregnate a female. If the female does become pregnant, she will give birth to one or two cubs, only one of which generally survives.
Now, species go extinct all the time. It’s just part of evolution. So what’s the point in trying to save the panda? Even if we do succeed in saving them, they cannot be released back into the wild to starve. The remaining pandas will have to live in captivity for as long as the species exists.
So why does the WWF want to save the panda? Why do they have it as their mascot? In a nutshell, because people all over the world will look at it and say, “Oh, how cute!� and send money to the WWF to try to save the useless bear.
Is this doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
The problem is that most consumers want the world to eventually become Disney Land.
Disney doesn’t create rides resembling starving African villages, they make rides with cute pandas, friendly elves, long lines, and an astronomical admission fee. And no one cares, because people don’t go to Disney Land to enrich their minds or help their neighbor. They go for the Dippin’ Dots. (I could go on for a bit about this, but instead I just suggest you read Neal Stephenson’s In The Beginning Was The Command Line)
I’m sure there have been organizations to save the Eighteen-Toed Slimy Mugwump of the Eurasian Badlands… but, as you can tell, no one cared enough to help them, so they’re not around anymore. Poor mugwump.
Oh, and can’t we crossbreed some bamboo that’s high in protein and low in carbs for the pandas to thrive on? Then they could live in peace, knowing that their cute, fat, bear asses didn’t need quite so much nourishment.
P.S. I love you. You know how to write, and you format just as I would. That’s a relief with hulk here, trust me.
August 10th, 2004, at 5:37 pm #Wow, that Disney land example pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell. And actually, that genetically modified bamboo idea is the most potentially effective one I’ve heard yet… It sure beats waiting until the three-day mating season and pumping the bears full of sex hormones.
P.S. Hahahaha nice to feel the love. I’m just happy to find somewhere I can post stuff like this and have people comment, and vice versa.
August 10th, 2004, at 9:42 pm #Guilty, guilty… I love animals — mostly the cute ones. In fact, I often threaten to kidnap an otter from the zoo and have it live in my bathtub. But I digress.
It seems pretty obvious from the examples given that the WWF is trying to save the cuter animals. Perhaps it is the right thing for the wrong reason. However, isn’t doing the right thing for the wrong reason better than doing nothing at all? Is motivation more important than action? (this could be a whole new discussion here….)
August 11th, 2004, at 8:04 am #You’re regressing me back to Ethics 103. More total good in the world is better, if you could prove that this increases that total. You could argue that helping cute animals is good even though it’s for the wrong reason, or that it’s bad because overall it hurts the natural order of the animal kingdom. Maybe if we hadn’t preserved the stupid species, we could have had superintelligent animals that did our dishes. Now that’s a species I’d pay to save.
The point of the Disney example is that people prefer manufactured environments to the real thing, and so eventually our conception of “the wild” is Disney’s Animal Kingdom. When Disney builds a simulated jungle, they do it down to the last detail - realistically worn stones, properly placed plants, etc. (assuming you ignore the paths) Then they take away the mosquitos. And the man-eating mugwumps. It’s Nature++ for humans. It’s just a tweak off reality, but it stimulates our entertainment synapses without the annoyances. It’s the same reason we like zoos.
August 11th, 2004, at 2:44 pm #While I do agree that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is generally better than doing nothing, I don’t really know if saving pandas is the “right” thing to do.
Pandas are not a species that are dying because of hunting or poaching. They are not a species that would flourish if we left them well enough alone. They really have no place in the world anymore. They don’t possess the necessary skills to survive in modern China.
It reminds me of a line from Fight Club (anyone see that movie?) “I want to blow the head off every panda that won’t screw to save it’s species.”
August 11th, 2004, at 6:26 pm #i think your wrong! WWF does all it can to help ALL animals in the world who are i=under a threat to to some selfish humans and i say good on them for doing their best. u may THINK that they only save the ‘cute’animals but i know that is not true, all animals are cute, and your view of what animals are cute or not is not everyone’s elses view! yeah isn’t it a GOOD thing that they stopped bear bating and seal beating?and they have also stopped and are working on stopping alot of other things. I say that animals have no chance of survival unless everyone aho CARES pull their heads in and start helping! think of coral for godness sakes! i wouldnt call that cute! would u? but yet how many times have u heard people talking about saviing and concerving the coral. sure thats only so the sea life have homes, but sea life life sea turtles and sea horses arn’t exactly the cute and cuddly animals that we’d just love to give a big hug 2 now are they! and by the way ur last remark about the pandas is totally un called for! it is U who deserves the head blown off, not them!
June 29th, 2005, at 4:07 am #