Monday, March 16, 2009
Saving the panda is an exercise in futility. Why? Because they don't want to live, that's why. Here is how I know.
Somewhere in the panda's evolution, the entire panda population decided to stop being a successful and prolific omnivore, and rather strangely, yet collectively, opted to eat only bamboo. Not only did they decide to only eat bamboo, oh no, that would be far to easy: there are loads of different types of bamboo, and some of them are more nutritionally sound than others. Did the panda choose one of these nourishing types for their only sustenance? Of course not, the panda, as a species, elected a particularly nutritionally poor variety that only grows on one hillside in China. This does not seem the kind of decision one would make if one wanted to live long and prosper. Does it? I mean, really.
In the same week that the Yellow River dolphin was declared extinct, I find our fervent insistence on saving the silly teddy almost too much to bear (no pun intended). The Yellow River dolphin did nothing to bring about its own demise, it was wiped out due to dam building and pollution, typical human endeavours (unless of course you count beavers, but to be honest, I don't think even the most ambitious beaver could engineer a dam on the Yellow River). Anyway, my point is, beavers didn't kill the dolphins, nor did the dolphins commit group suicide, people killed the Yellow River dolphin and it's a f**king travesty. People have very little to do with the demise of pandas, they've organised their own downfall and they seem pretty adamant to me.
There have been dedicated Panda Sanctuaries since the 1960's, which has sustained the panda population. However, left alone the pandas just carry on being evolutionally pathetic and slowly dying out. One of the many reasons that the panda population diminishes in nature is that homosexuality among pandas increases with every generation; they are turning more gay. Yes, that's right, GAY. But do we take the hint? No, instead we throw aphrodisiacs, Viagra and even In Vitero fertilisation at them. Why? What is our obsession with keeping them alive? There are countless labs around solely dedicated to the preservation of pandas, they've got them in jars, in tubes, in bloody Petri dishes, we're going to overrun by the bastard fuzz balls soon. I say, screw pandas. I'd like to see what would happen if we channelled all the effort we make for pandas into saving something that actually wants to live, like gorillas, tigers, polar bears or cod.
As most of you will already know, due to their poor diet, pandas are very lethargic, as well as gay, and hardly ever have it off. On the rare occasions that they do, and even rarer occasions that the carnal encounter is a heterosexual one, and yet rarer still results in a pregnancy; the panda's weak constitution only allows for a very short gestation, consequently, they give birth to what can only be described as a Jelly Baby. Tiny, translucent and jelly-like, the poor little shit doesn't stand a chance. Most of them drop off their colossal, smelly mothers and get lost in the undergrowth where they fall prey to craftier species.
In fact, I bet there's a little ferret-like mammal on that hillside in China whose diet is supplemented with pink, panda-shaped Jelly Babies that occasionally fall off a monochrome bear; I imagine them dressed in a tiny chef's hat, frying foetal pandas off in a pan with some spring onion over a little gas flame.
To me, us putting all this effort into saving the panda, (I am talking about the giant panda, not the red panda, the red panda is well cool and by no means 'lesser'), is like keeping a two hundred year old person alive through machinery, once in a while shouting 'clear' and then thrusting hundreds of volts through their chest, laughing at the poor old bastard's pleas for a dignified death while mercilessly pointing at them.
Mia Tagg 2009®