. Take a deep breath and dive in. Now, I'm no biologist, but you know what else earth probably wouldn't have if it didn't have people? Pandas.
Pandas? What are you talking about?
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 01:55 PM (QRBGL)
Panda females reject their young. Humans have to force pandas to mate and then keep the infant panda alive with great effort. Pandas don't breed well on their own, but we want to keep them alive because they're cute and fuzzy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 13, 2006 03:23 PM (7Wklx)
Wow, that's pretty dumb Sarah. How do you think Pandas have existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
The worst part about this post is now I have to think about humans forcing pandas to mate.
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 10:54 PM (QRBGL)
And like the article hypothetically daydreamed, if all humans disappeared right this second, there'd be about 1000 pandas who fight when they mate and reject their infant young and spend 14 hours a day eating bamboo instead of mating. Maybe their numbers could bounce back eventually, but zoos are the ones fighting to keep panda numbers up right now.
So maybe my offhanded snide comment wasn't 100% perfect, but it's not entirely without merit.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 03:05 AM (7Wklx)
Yeah, it's too bad we've nearly driven them to extinction. If I were a right-winger trying to back up my position, I'd just say that all the animals would be dead anyway if it wasn't for Noah and his ark. Now there's some hypothetical daydreaming you can sink your teeth into.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 12:01 PM (QRBGL)
Will, that last comment makes absolutely no sense. Wanna try again?
Posted by: piercello at October 14, 2006 12:30 PM (Rg1Yo)
Sorry I don't fit into your stereotype, Will, but I don't believe in the Ark.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 01:00 PM (7Wklx)
It's hard to pigeon-hole you Sarah... I hate that... it makes your blog way too addictive.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 02:43 PM (QRBGL)
| Add Comment