I didn't vote until after I started reading the replies. You guys/gals were writing things I agreed with so I scrolled up real fast and hit Yes- DOH! Now I'm a panda hater. On that note, wish you guys could see the bamboo floors I just picked out for my new house. They look amazing.

(August 15, 2014 at 11:21 am)Zack Wrote: Now I'm a panda hater. On that note, wish you guys could see the bamboo floors I just picked out for my new house. They look amazing.

Yeah, I guess you would really hate any hungry panda that come to your new house then.

As unbelievable as it looks. Some of us voted Yes. I know someone who won't be happy about that.

My biggest concern with the whole issue is, is it ethical?

Is it ethical for us as a species, in this survival-of-the-fittest harsh reality, to favor other animals over our own survival and well-being? Nature is a bitch, yet we seem to think we're under some moral obligation to go against the flow, the order as it were.

Hell, some 2.4 billion people, one-third of the world's population, are without the basics - water, sanitation and hygiene. Yet we don't really care that much or address the core of the problem.

Its downright appalling that we, as a social-species, have allowed this current state of affairs to happen, continue to happen, and get worse.

Its not just a global phenomenon, its local too. Recently, the NSPCC arrived with police up in a street in my town, a child was being abused, yet no one battered an eye-lid. Now, 30 minutes later the RSPCA pulled on the opposite side with an officer over the report of a dog in a car, and every spectator went "awwwww". Then, amusingly, several in the crowd turned around and went "Wait, WTF is wrong with us? We cared only about the dog in distress and not the poor kid?"

Pandas are living creatures that deserve some dignity and respect. Is it ethical therefore, to force them to have sex and breed? Against their will?

Just because we think they are "cute"?

Imagine if you will:
You are one of the last humans alive on planet Earth. A combination of natural disasters had decimated our population... for all intents and purposes, let's just say, we're all but extinct.

Now a race of giant Cloverfield-like aliens arrive, and get this, find us to be the cutest little critters they've ever seen in the entire galaxy and feel compelled to save us.

They take you and pair you up with another human being of the opposite sex. You find the setup repugnant. You are not remotely interested, nor sexually attracted to this other person... at all. You'd rather live a peaceful life by yourself.

Yet the Cloverfield-esque aliens force you two together, setting up various scenarios, in the desperate hopes you'll have many many children to entertain them for years to come.

They want to distribute your offspring to other worlds they've colonized. They're willing to spend an unbelievable amount of time, money and resources to your conservation. Turns out, they don't treat their own kind too generously either, and are apathetic to the suffering and misery of those who aren't doing so good on other worlds.

They don't believe in the saying "charity starts at home". They're the dominant species in the galaxy, they can do whatever the fuck they want.

None of that matters to them, you're their top-priority now.

Now, this is obviously unethical, and indeed immoral. How is any of this different from what we're currently doing. :c

If I was one of the last pair of fertile human beings on earth, and the other is so repugnant that she could almost be Sarah palin, I would still fuck her brains out because overriding purpose of my existence is not changed by the circumstances.

BTW, I think morality is only justified by the better ordering of human society it can bring about. Nothing that dooms human society to extinction can be moral. So it would not be immoral for aliens to compel us to perpetuate our species. If we think it is immoral then our morality needs to be guttered.

Quote: and the other is so repugnant that she could almost be Sarah palin,

That's why they invented light switches and paper bags.

(August 17, 2014 at 6:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: and the other is so repugnant that she could almost be Sarah palin,

That's why they invented light switches and paper bags.

The mental image, min, the mental image. But even so I will still rally my sanity and gonads to making the supreme sacrifice needed to perpetuate the specie.

I may have outdated information, but I'm pretty sure the reason they're going extinct is mainly because they don't want to have sex with each other. You have a carnivorous animal subsisting on vegetation, who is more antisocial than tazmanian devils. Even those little buggers will manage to tolerate each other long enough to get laid.

Pandas aren't even trying, so why should we?

(August 17, 2014 at 6:37 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I may have outdated information, but I'm pretty sure the reason they're going extinct is mainly because they don't want to have sex with each other. You have a carnivorous animal subsisting on vegetation, who is more antisocial than tazmanian devils. Even those little buggers will manage to tolerate each other long enough to get laid.

Pandas aren't even trying, so why should we?

Cuz we are not doing this for Pandas? And would a level of mental facilities comparable to what is observed in pandas be enough to make a human responsible for his own actions in a civilized country that doesn't execute retarded teenagers?

Btw, there is no evidence fundamental panda sexual appetite have changed in the millions of years in which they had failed to go extinct. So I don't think the fact their sexual appetite failed to live up to our expectation can be enough to reason to deem them inadequate to survival.