Pandemonium

It happened to me to read some postings regarding the newest expansion Blizzard announced ("Mists of Pandaria"). So the thread derailed a little bit and they came up to talk about pandas and that pandas should have died long time ago for their way of living and because we are spending too much money on saving them.

This was thought-provoking. And it underlines they two main ways people think nowadays. But step by step.

First: To make it clear: There are two types of pandas - big and little ones. Let's discuss about the big ones. The cute ones, not the cat like ones (which are also cute, ok... ).

It is _not_ true that they only eat bamboo, while it's true that it's their main source. There are more than 20 bamboo species, so there is enough to eat for them (what they have to do, that's true).
The WWF used ice bears for publicity purposes and demonstrating how one particular species is endangered, which turned out to be not that true ;) Despite that Pandas are endangered, but not because of their low birthrate :) but also from the habitat loss they are suffering and some diseases they get by that loss, too (contact with new viruses from cats and dogs near the frontiers of their habitat).

A lot of money is invested to rescue Pandas, that's true. This makes some people angry.

We could say that the money would have been spent better for other things. And it's true that every day more than 30 (to more than 100) species exctinct every day. We could say "Well, why start with Pandas then?". Good question, I cannot give an answer to that. But that the protection of the environment would be difficult and expensive is well known. It's easy to kill life, it's expensive to save it - simple as that.

"Expensive" is, by the way, always a matter of perspective. For the scientists the LHC is important, for others too expensive. For some guys the space program is also too expensive. Or that it would be too expensive to help those guys where the uranium mining happens (they're mostly contaminated and when the mining finishes they leave the contaminated machines back for the people living there - '"take it, it's for free").
It might turn out that the extinction of life could be far more expensive than we can calculate now. Let's not forget that economists just have problems to really predict really well what will happen in the following year.

In the end we can decide: Start to re-invest money on earth or continue the earth fisting we call "progression". It's a free country, do what you want, but face the truth: Do not walk into the trap of the cognitive dissonance in which we try to base our decision of arguments we think could work (like "I had to by this phone because.. eh... it might be useful someday!"). Say like it is: I want to keep my luxury and have enough problems with my own life. But then life with the consequences.

If someone asks me what I think about all that I simply answer:

"Sadly human lives for too long so he can destroy the world and he lives too short for suffering the consequences. "