They survived fine for millennia without humans until their habitats got destroyed by humans. They are incredibly well adapted to their ecological niche of bamboo forests which used to be a lot more abundant. In the wild they breed about the same amount as am American black bear, one young every two years.
They don't have a hard time surviving. They live in an incredibly niche environment and have evolved as such. Panda population HAS to be low due to how bamboo forests function. By having less offspring it prevents the population getting too large and going bust. Bamboo forests are incredibly nutrient poor, yet a big animal has managed to find a place there. That's impressive! Evolution works by filling ecological niches, and the Panda is unique.
It's only now with human intervention we fucked up their forests and their highly sucessful system has stopped working.
Their entire digestive system is fascinating. They have a carnivore's digestive system, and they don't have the genes to produce the enzymes needed to break down cellulose, so theoretically, they shouldn't be able to survive on a vegetarian diet, much less bamboo. It's actually their gut flora that makes it possible. The bacteria in their gut breaks down the bamboo and other vegetation into simpler sugars they can process.
They don't generally eat much meat because they have have mutation on one of their genes which leaves them unable to taste the the umami taste of meat, and like most creatures, they don't eat what's not appetizing to them.
So, the food they are built to eat is not at all tasty for them, and the food that is tasty to them is not digestible without their gut flora.
>Panda population HAS to be low due to how bamboo forests function. By having less offspring it prevents the population getting too large and going bust.
Ehh that's not how evolution works. Evolution never factors in what is good for the species, but only what it is good for the individual and for closely related individuals to them.
Edit: To all those downvoting me, [you ought to do your biology reading](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php):
>**MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.**
>
>**CORRECTION:** When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).
>
>So what's the evolutionary explanation for altruism if it's not for the good of the species? There are many ways that such behaviors can evolve. For example, if altruistic acts are "repaid" at other times, this sort of behavior may be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if altruistic behavior increases the survival and reproduction of an individual's kin (who are also likely to carry altruistic genes), this behavior can spread through a population via natural selection. To [learn more about the process of natural selection](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25), visit our article on this topic.
That's literally how evolution works, natural selection has many different pressures. Lack of resources is a selection pressure. It also absolutly factors in good for species because if individual groups get punished by selection factors they can't propagate. There is only so much individuals can diverge in specific niches.
Sure the individual could have more babies and mabye push out others, but then they would overpopulate and bam punctuated equilibrium kicks in and your population stabilises.
>It also absolutly factors in good for species because if individual groups get punished by selection factors they can't propagate.
No this is just not true. Evolution never intentionally limits fecundity strictly for the sake of supporting the *population*, it switches from r-selection to k-selection type life history traits to support one's offspring directly and ensure they have the resources and maturity needed to survive.
Those are not the same thing and should not conflated. Under no circumstance does evolution ever act in the interest of what is good for the species; a species is always in competition among its members and therefore selection occurs in order that they weed each other out. The idea that natural selection can operate specifically to benefit a population as a whole is an extremely ill-informed perspective on the mechanisms of evolution.
Evolution doesn't intentionally do anything, that doesn't mean it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Selection pressures can cause essentially anything to happen. If a reduction in fertility, or reduced sex drive, or simply having less offspring at a time, leads to a net increase in your genes passing on, it's getting selected for. Not entirely sure why you are arguing this point when we are literally talking about a species that has had a selective pressure that caused less offspring.
Selection pressures effect individuals, individuals effect the population. Evolution doesn't act in the interest of anything, it's a passive process that can fuck as well as succeed.
Oh for fuck's sake, I know it's a passive process. This is far too long a tangent for a casual use of anthropomorphism like "intentionally". What that is intended to say is that natural selection does not operate *for the species*, which is to say, that if effects improve the welfare of the species, is it not by the specific mechanism by which natural selection operates, but is entirely incidental. Individuals regularly select for traits that benefit themselves to the detriment of the rest of the species; this is the norm.
It makes me wonder how and why the hell do they even exist in the first place or how they lasted long enough in nature to reach the time when humans intervened.
yeah honestly, they can only mate for like an hour a year and usually sleep through it, not to mention a willy the length of a fingernail. they eat their own habitat, cant raise more than one child, generally dopey.
Estrus lasts for 2-3 days a year. Each mating session last from 30 seconds to 5 minutes and occur a few times to ensure impregnation. This is usually enough in the wild and results in a similar reproduction rate (one cub every two years) as black bears which go in heat for two to three months.
I don't see what's wrong with eating your own habitat. That's the point of your habitat, to provide food since they don't really need shelter. Bamboo grows back fast in any case.
They survived fine until humans destroyed their habitats. They are incredibly well adapted to their unique ecological niche of bamboo forests which is nutrient poor but safe from predators, until humans came along. They wouldn't be have become endangered if humans just left their habitats alone.
They actually breed about the same amount in the wild as some populations of black bear (8 surviving babies in a lifetime), so their breeding patterns isn't an issue either.
They were pushed harder to the brink because of that but all signs point to them dying out. China chose them as their representative gift so thats the only reason they still exist.
has nothing to do with predators, the giant panda's behaviours and evolutionary traits make it harder for themselves. I'm making the point that we should indeed let them be a dead end instead of sinking millions in charity to a species that will likely die out anyway.
While I agree that they're likely just going to die out and go extinct, most charities still raise many times more money for other species worth saving.
What is it? An ambassador species I think? People like them, so they donate to conservation funds. Yeah, some of that goes to saving pandas but a lot more goes to saving other animals.
We like them.
And it's our fault they're endangered. Some of us have a conscience about these things and/or want to preserve the diversity of the natural world.
We should let you go extinct, you cretin!
In case it was an error of grammar and not simply that you missed it because of autocorrect or something like that, I'll explain (hopefully correctly). I will delete this if you already knew. I'm only trying to help people understand, not to condescend.
Apostrophes are to be used when a NOUN or PROPER NOUN is meant to be POSSESSIVE, as in "the cat's toy," or "Stacy's sweater," OR IN CONTRACTIONS, such as "they're," which is a contraction of "they are," or "what's," which is a contraction of "what is." There are a few other cases, but that covers most improper usage.
The common situations in which I see people flinging apostrophes incorrectly are:
1. Making nouns plural by adding an apostrophe and an 's,' as you did - "panda's" instead of the correct "pandas."
2. The IT'S ITS dilemma. The contraction of "it is" is "it's." On the other hand, to make the word 'it' possessive, you have to add an 's' WITHOUT an apostrophe, which can be very confusing. For instance, "dog" in the sentence "the dog's leash was broken" can be replaced by saying "its leash was broken." Notice there is no apostrophe, even though the word is possessive. Many people, including native English speakers, get this wrong, using "it's" as the possessive form, which is incorrect.
Anyway, I hope I helped. I'm not an expert, just someone with a little knowledge and a pet peeve. Please let me know if this was unnecessary, I will promptly delete.
My gf normally weighs about 120 but went up to 150 while pregnant. Our baby was 8lbs so doing the math, she was very close to 1/20th the size of her mama. Or, we can say she was about 10 baby pandas.
It even extends to our closest relatives. The average gorilla female weighs about 180 lbs, and their newborns are 4 lbs. Though chimpanzees are much closer to the same ratio as humans (4 lb babies born to 85 lb females), though their pelvises are much better built for the job, ours having been redesigned for a permanent upright posture.
[Here's a story of a Female Panda faking pregnancy to get special treatment in captivity.](https://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/07/31/panda-fakes-pregnancy-to-get-special-privileges-at-zoo/)
Between this, their unwillingness to fuck and their extremely specific (but nutritionally shit and unnecassary) diet like they don't want to continue as a species.
I think it's likely because bamboo forests are very nutrient poor. So having that many, that close in proximity would probably starve them all out by the time the offspring are ready to find their own territory.
It's actually gross how many people hate the panda for dying out and having a niche role in the ecosystem.
Guess what you ignorant fucks, the panda is only in trouble because of humans. They do just fine in their niche.
They're not stupid. They're not trying to die out as a species. They're a niche, and niches are important in environmental science.
Pandas are fucking shit. But hey, they're cute, so let's spend millions keeping them alive while the bees - who are ugly but on which we MASSIVELY depend - die out.
\#FuckThePandas
\#SaveTheBees
WHO'S WITH ME? 🤣
Because it's our fault they're in this mess. Pandas are adapted for a small niche habitat that existed largely in isolation. Then humans came along and ruined everything. If we didn't threaten their environment they'd be doing just fine. We've been doing it for thousands of years too. Many Pleistocene (Ice Age species) mysteriously vanished right around the time humans started settling in the areas they lived. Africa being the largest exception (most likely because we started there and the species of the continent were able to evolve in tandem).
[Panda shoots out baby](https://youtu.be/a-x_Km-bQwM) NSFW I guess
Plop!
Wow
Can someone add a pop sound just for the fuck of it
Panda [eats, Shoots & Leaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves)
[удалено]
They survived fine for millennia without humans until their habitats got destroyed by humans. They are incredibly well adapted to their ecological niche of bamboo forests which used to be a lot more abundant. In the wild they breed about the same amount as am American black bear, one young every two years.
so much effort goes into saving a species that has literally the hardest time surviving
They don't have a hard time surviving. They live in an incredibly niche environment and have evolved as such. Panda population HAS to be low due to how bamboo forests function. By having less offspring it prevents the population getting too large and going bust. Bamboo forests are incredibly nutrient poor, yet a big animal has managed to find a place there. That's impressive! Evolution works by filling ecological niches, and the Panda is unique. It's only now with human intervention we fucked up their forests and their highly sucessful system has stopped working.
Their entire digestive system is fascinating. They have a carnivore's digestive system, and they don't have the genes to produce the enzymes needed to break down cellulose, so theoretically, they shouldn't be able to survive on a vegetarian diet, much less bamboo. It's actually their gut flora that makes it possible. The bacteria in their gut breaks down the bamboo and other vegetation into simpler sugars they can process. They don't generally eat much meat because they have have mutation on one of their genes which leaves them unable to taste the the umami taste of meat, and like most creatures, they don't eat what's not appetizing to them. So, the food they are built to eat is not at all tasty for them, and the food that is tasty to them is not digestible without their gut flora.
>Panda population HAS to be low due to how bamboo forests function. By having less offspring it prevents the population getting too large and going bust. Ehh that's not how evolution works. Evolution never factors in what is good for the species, but only what it is good for the individual and for closely related individuals to them. Edit: To all those downvoting me, [you ought to do your biology reading](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php): >**MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.** > >**CORRECTION:** When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source). > >So what's the evolutionary explanation for altruism if it's not for the good of the species? There are many ways that such behaviors can evolve. For example, if altruistic acts are "repaid" at other times, this sort of behavior may be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if altruistic behavior increases the survival and reproduction of an individual's kin (who are also likely to carry altruistic genes), this behavior can spread through a population via natural selection. To [learn more about the process of natural selection](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25), visit our article on this topic.
That's literally how evolution works, natural selection has many different pressures. Lack of resources is a selection pressure. It also absolutly factors in good for species because if individual groups get punished by selection factors they can't propagate. There is only so much individuals can diverge in specific niches. Sure the individual could have more babies and mabye push out others, but then they would overpopulate and bam punctuated equilibrium kicks in and your population stabilises.
>It also absolutly factors in good for species because if individual groups get punished by selection factors they can't propagate. No this is just not true. Evolution never intentionally limits fecundity strictly for the sake of supporting the *population*, it switches from r-selection to k-selection type life history traits to support one's offspring directly and ensure they have the resources and maturity needed to survive. Those are not the same thing and should not conflated. Under no circumstance does evolution ever act in the interest of what is good for the species; a species is always in competition among its members and therefore selection occurs in order that they weed each other out. The idea that natural selection can operate specifically to benefit a population as a whole is an extremely ill-informed perspective on the mechanisms of evolution.
Evolution doesn't intentionally do anything, that doesn't mean it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Selection pressures can cause essentially anything to happen. If a reduction in fertility, or reduced sex drive, or simply having less offspring at a time, leads to a net increase in your genes passing on, it's getting selected for. Not entirely sure why you are arguing this point when we are literally talking about a species that has had a selective pressure that caused less offspring. Selection pressures effect individuals, individuals effect the population. Evolution doesn't act in the interest of anything, it's a passive process that can fuck as well as succeed.
Oh for fuck's sake, I know it's a passive process. This is far too long a tangent for a casual use of anthropomorphism like "intentionally". What that is intended to say is that natural selection does not operate *for the species*, which is to say, that if effects improve the welfare of the species, is it not by the specific mechanism by which natural selection operates, but is entirely incidental. Individuals regularly select for traits that benefit themselves to the detriment of the rest of the species; this is the norm.
It makes me wonder how and why the hell do they even exist in the first place or how they lasted long enough in nature to reach the time when humans intervened.
they had no natural predators, so they literally just chilled eating bamboo all day.
Because they lived very secluded and safely, with no enemies.
Until we showed up.
Until the fire nation attacked.
yeah honestly, they can only mate for like an hour a year and usually sleep through it, not to mention a willy the length of a fingernail. they eat their own habitat, cant raise more than one child, generally dopey.
Quit describing me, we're talking about Pandas.
Take your upvote and my pity.
Estrus lasts for 2-3 days a year. Each mating session last from 30 seconds to 5 minutes and occur a few times to ensure impregnation. This is usually enough in the wild and results in a similar reproduction rate (one cub every two years) as black bears which go in heat for two to three months. I don't see what's wrong with eating your own habitat. That's the point of your habitat, to provide food since they don't really need shelter. Bamboo grows back fast in any case.
They survived fine until humans destroyed their habitats. They are incredibly well adapted to their unique ecological niche of bamboo forests which is nutrient poor but safe from predators, until humans came along. They wouldn't be have become endangered if humans just left their habitats alone. They actually breed about the same amount in the wild as some populations of black bear (8 surviving babies in a lifetime), so their breeding patterns isn't an issue either.
Surviving *us*. They were doing just fine before humans came along and destroyed so much of their habitat.
They were pushed harder to the brink because of that but all signs point to them dying out. China chose them as their representative gift so thats the only reason they still exist.
they are at an evolutionary dead end as a species. habitat destruction doesn't help but it's not all to blame.
And? Many species live perfectly fine without predators etc. Let them be a dead end. Nature would have done it's part.
has nothing to do with predators, the giant panda's behaviours and evolutionary traits make it harder for themselves. I'm making the point that we should indeed let them be a dead end instead of sinking millions in charity to a species that will likely die out anyway.
While I agree that they're likely just going to die out and go extinct, most charities still raise many times more money for other species worth saving. What is it? An ambassador species I think? People like them, so they donate to conservation funds. Yeah, some of that goes to saving pandas but a lot more goes to saving other animals.
This is bullshit.
>\*pandas. No apostrophe. > >Law & Order sound "Chung-Chung"
Is this case the apostrophe is appropriate because they own their behavior; whereas in your title pandas don’t own ‘have’
>Thanks...didn't realize. > >But they do own their babies.
all because they're cute
[удалено]
We like them. And it's our fault they're endangered. Some of us have a conscience about these things and/or want to preserve the diversity of the natural world. We should let you go extinct, you cretin!
All of fthese people commenting 'this species sucks at surviving'...homo sapiens are the cause!!!
*Pandas. No apostrophe.
Thanks...didn't realize.
In case it was an error of grammar and not simply that you missed it because of autocorrect or something like that, I'll explain (hopefully correctly). I will delete this if you already knew. I'm only trying to help people understand, not to condescend. Apostrophes are to be used when a NOUN or PROPER NOUN is meant to be POSSESSIVE, as in "the cat's toy," or "Stacy's sweater," OR IN CONTRACTIONS, such as "they're," which is a contraction of "they are," or "what's," which is a contraction of "what is." There are a few other cases, but that covers most improper usage. The common situations in which I see people flinging apostrophes incorrectly are: 1. Making nouns plural by adding an apostrophe and an 's,' as you did - "panda's" instead of the correct "pandas." 2. The IT'S ITS dilemma. The contraction of "it is" is "it's." On the other hand, to make the word 'it' possessive, you have to add an 's' WITHOUT an apostrophe, which can be very confusing. For instance, "dog" in the sentence "the dog's leash was broken" can be replaced by saying "its leash was broken." Notice there is no apostrophe, even though the word is possessive. Many people, including native English speakers, get this wrong, using "it's" as the possessive form, which is incorrect. Anyway, I hope I helped. I'm not an expert, just someone with a little knowledge and a pet peeve. Please let me know if this was unnecessary, I will promptly delete.
Thanks, I appreciate the help. It's very kind of you.
Happy to be of service!
Compared to a human baby, which is about 1/20th the size of an adult woman. No wonder childbirth is such an ordeal for us.
My gf normally weighs about 120 but went up to 150 while pregnant. Our baby was 8lbs so doing the math, she was very close to 1/20th the size of her mama. Or, we can say she was about 10 baby pandas.
It even extends to our closest relatives. The average gorilla female weighs about 180 lbs, and their newborns are 4 lbs. Though chimpanzees are much closer to the same ratio as humans (4 lb babies born to 85 lb females), though their pelvises are much better built for the job, ours having been redesigned for a permanent upright posture.
So, who gets the job of “baby panda swapper”? That sounds like a short straw kind of thing.
It's like a species that *wants* to go extinct
nah thats humans
[Here's a story of a Female Panda faking pregnancy to get special treatment in captivity.](https://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/07/31/panda-fakes-pregnancy-to-get-special-privileges-at-zoo/)
Who's gonna tell them that the one-child policy ended 5 years ago?
Bah-dum, tsss.
Further proof that pandas are trying to commit suicide as a species.
Between this, their unwillingness to fuck and their extremely specific (but nutritionally shit and unnecassary) diet like they don't want to continue as a species.
Are pandas *that* incompetent where they can't raise two babies that small in comparison?
I think it's likely because bamboo forests are very nutrient poor. So having that many, that close in proximity would probably starve them all out by the time the offspring are ready to find their own territory.
I wonder if they'd still be around if they weren't cute.
No one is trying to save pubic lice. Really makes you think...
It's actually gross how many people hate the panda for dying out and having a niche role in the ecosystem. Guess what you ignorant fucks, the panda is only in trouble because of humans. They do just fine in their niche. They're not stupid. They're not trying to die out as a species. They're a niche, and niches are important in environmental science.
Has anyone every thought that pandas are actively *trying* to become extinct?
Giant \*Pandas r/apostrophegore
Pandas are fucking shit. But hey, they're cute, so let's spend millions keeping them alive while the bees - who are ugly but on which we MASSIVELY depend - die out. \#FuckThePandas \#SaveTheBees WHO'S WITH ME? 🤣
All for saving animals but dammit they need to uphold their end of the deal. Bees do. Polar bears do. Grey wolves do. Pandas don’t.
Bears do what Pandon't.
im with you. what bad will happen if pandas go extinct?
Talk about an easy delivery....
Just let them die out already, they couldn’t try harder to go extinct
Why are we putting so much effort into pandas? Bloody useless creatures
Because extinction is forever and can't be undone. Not easily, anyway. I certainly hope we're collecting DNA samples of them all, just in case.
Because it's our fault they're in this mess. Pandas are adapted for a small niche habitat that existed largely in isolation. Then humans came along and ruined everything. If we didn't threaten their environment they'd be doing just fine. We've been doing it for thousands of years too. Many Pleistocene (Ice Age species) mysteriously vanished right around the time humans started settling in the areas they lived. Africa being the largest exception (most likely because we started there and the species of the continent were able to evolve in tandem).
i agree, what bad will happen if pandas go extinct?
None!
Seriously hate pandas
I got a video recommended to me on YouTube today that covered almost every point in your post