Rift Developer Likes Pandas Too

Rift Developer Likes Pandas Too

image

For every copy of Rift: Storm Legion pre-ordered, Trion will donate a dollar to Pandas International.

Trion Worlds has just announced a panda-themed charity promotion that, in what can only be described as a massive coincidence, just so happens to coincide with the launch of World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria.

Starting tomorrow, every copy of Rift: Storm Legion pre-ordered through the expansion's official website will net Pandas International a nice shiny dollar. The charity is exclusively devoted to preserving and caring for the world's very limited supply of giant pandas. The promotion is running worldwide, excluding Alabama, Massachusetts and South Carolina for some bizarre reason, and the total donation is capped at $10,000.

"Know why we have to do that?" reads the small print on the announcement. "Maine. Weird, right? We don't know what they have against Pandas, or why $10,000 is a magical number, either. This contribution is not tax deductible, but it would be pretty awesome if it were."

While Rift isn't the biggest player in MMOville, chances are it'll hit that 10,000 pre-orders goal with ease. Essentially Trion just donated ten grand to charity, netting itself some cheeky publicity in the process.

Source: RiftGame.com

Permalink

Excellent...Everything is going according to plan.

What about the polar bears?

Mr.Pandah:
Excellent...Everything is going according to plan.

I've always been suspicious of you!

-Dragmire-:
What about the polar bears?

Mr.Pandah:
Excellent...Everything is going according to plan.

I've always been suspicious of you!

*Shifty eyes* QUIET YOU!

It is odd that they're excluding three states, but not the state that adds a cap to their donation.

Mr.Pandah:

-Dragmire-:
What about the polar bears?

Mr.Pandah:
Excellent...Everything is going according to plan.

I've always been suspicious of you!

*Shifty eyes* QUIET YOU!

while us cats have taken over the globe, you Pandas have squandered your chances. Is there a LOLpanda website? NO! WE WIN

Is there a reason that Pandas, the only animal in the world that needs human assistance to reproduce, is in dire need of our charity dollars instead of being left alone to, you know, do what it should have done years ago?

Why does an MMO have an underwear model on the front cover?

...Oh, right.

WOW and Rift actually portray Pandas very close to the way they behave in the real world: These bears don't screw around.

$10,000 worth of aphrodisiacs, lucky Panda's!

Meanwhile, at Blizzard HQ...

image

Captcha: Jaguar. Wrong animal, captcha. Silly captcha.

here are my feelings towards pandas:

OT: I find it good that Trion are donating money to a cause but why not tigers? Tigers are awesome.

LifeCharacter:
Is there a reason that Pandas, the only animal in the world that needs human assistance to reproduce, is in dire need of our charity dollars instead of being left alone to, you know, do what it should have done years ago?

Because the giant panda is an evolutionary dead end it eats a food it's GI tract isn't adapted too and has long reproduction cycles that make it difficult to evolve swiftly.

I promise that I won't kill one if you give me the 10 grand!

LifeCharacter:
Is there a reason that Pandas, the only animal in the world that needs human assistance to reproduce, is in dire need of our charity dollars instead of being left alone to, you know, do what it should have done years ago?

Disclaimer: opinions incoming!

Because without humans they (likely) wouldn't have gotten into this dire situation in the first place.

Now, you could say: "So? Species go extinct all the time because they can't compete with the rest. Since humans are also animals, how is this any different?"
I'm afraid it's not that simple though. Humans are indeed animals but we have become so efficient at survival, it's not really a daily concern any more. (in general anyway, I'm not talking about starving third world countries) This has given us massive amounts of spare time to spend on less vital occupations, allowing us the to become the force of nature we are today. It also allows us to make moral decisions, as opposed to any other animal. For example: we can choose not to kill a chicken on sight and survive just fine. A fox doesn't have this luxury so if he can get away with killing it, he will.
And, in my opinion, having such moral freedom doesn't just allow us think about what we do, it makes us. That's why I think the concept of live and let die is fine for any other animal, but we are no longer allowed to shrug off the consequences of our actions like that.

Secondly, we may be masters of survival but we still can't do so without other animals and plants. Just think of what bees and other flying bugs mean to our survival, just by carrying around pollen. Granted, the panda isn't exactly a shining example of this but the whole idea of live and let die is a slippery slope regardless.

not to seem offensive, but aside from its existence, what is its contribution to the big picture? No one seems to miss the Dodo bird, granted it fell down the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Phoenix8541:
not to seem offensive, but aside from its existence, what is its contribution to the big picture? No one seems to miss the Dodo bird, granted it fell down the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Pandas are cute, simple as that. There are animals far more in danger of going extinct and deserving of the attention, the problem they have is that they're mostly ugly and boring.

Grey Carter:
Rift Developer Likes Pandas Too

"Know why we have to do that?" reads the small print on the announcement. "Maine. Weird, right? We don't know what they have against Pandas, or why $10,000 is a magical number, either. This contribution is not tax deductible, but it would be pretty awesome if it were."

Permalink

I am confused by the unusual laws of my home state. I thought we loved bears of all kinds, since the black bear is practically our state mascot.

bliebblob:

LifeCharacter:
Is there a reason that Pandas, the only animal in the world that needs human assistance to reproduce, is in dire need of our charity dollars instead of being left alone to, you know, do what it should have done years ago?

Disclaimer: opinions incoming!

Because without humans they (likely) wouldn't have gotten into this dire situation in the first place.

Now, you could say: "So? Species go extinct all the time because they can't compete with the rest. Since humans are also animals, how is this any different?"
I'm afraid it's not that simple though. Humans are indeed animals but we have become so efficient at survival, it's not really a daily concern any more. (in general anyway, I'm not talking about starving third world countries) This has given us massive amounts of spare time to spend on less vital occupations, allowing us the to become the force of nature we are today. It also allows us to make moral decisions, as opposed to any other animal. For example: we can choose not to kill a chicken on sight and survive just fine. A fox doesn't have this luxury so if he can get away with killing it, he will.
And, in my opinion, having such moral freedom doesn't just allow us think about what we do, it makes us. That's why I think the concept of live and let die is fine for any other animal, but we are no longer allowed to shrug off the consequences of our actions like that.

Secondly, we may be masters of survival but we still can't do so without other animals and plants. Just think of what bees and other flying bugs mean to our survival, just by carrying around pollen. Granted, the panda isn't exactly a shining example of this but the whole idea of live and let die is a slippery slope regardless.

They have the digestive tract of a carnivore and the diet of an herbivore. It would be hard to come up with a less efficient animal if you tried. They have evolved to not be particularly competitive even in their own environment, but we focus tons of resources on helping them because "they're cute". That same amount of money and effort could go toward helping multiple other more viable species/ecosystems that aren't effectively doomed to failure by their own design, but we don't do that because the others don't have as good PR. Would it be nice if we could save all of them? Absolutely. Is it practical/possible? I kind of doubt it, and I worry sometimes that we'll lose something important that would've been easier to save by prioritizing things the way we do.

I came into this thread for Pandas

>_>

<_<

*walks away

Nalgas D. Lemur:

bliebblob:

LifeCharacter:
Is there a reason that Pandas, the only animal in the world that needs human assistance to reproduce, is in dire need of our charity dollars instead of being left alone to, you know, do what it should have done years ago?

Disclaimer: opinions incoming!

Because without humans they (likely) wouldn't have gotten into this dire situation in the first place.

Now, you could say: "So? Species go extinct all the time because they can't compete with the rest. Since humans are also animals, how is this any different?"
I'm afraid it's not that simple though. Humans are indeed animals but we have become so efficient at survival, it's not really a daily concern any more. (in general anyway, I'm not talking about starving third world countries) This has given us massive amounts of spare time to spend on less vital occupations, allowing us the to become the force of nature we are today. It also allows us to make moral decisions, as opposed to any other animal. For example: we can choose not to kill a chicken on sight and survive just fine. A fox doesn't have this luxury so if he can get away with killing it, he will.
And, in my opinion, having such moral freedom doesn't just allow us think about what we do, it makes us. That's why I think the concept of live and let die is fine for any other animal, but we are no longer allowed to shrug off the consequences of our actions like that.

Secondly, we may be masters of survival but we still can't do so without other animals and plants. Just think of what bees and other flying bugs mean to our survival, just by carrying around pollen. Granted, the panda isn't exactly a shining example of this but the whole idea of live and let die is a slippery slope regardless.

They have the digestive tract of a carnivore and the diet of an herbivore. It would be hard to come up with a less efficient animal if you tried. They have evolved to not be particularly competitive even in their own environment,

The part on the digestive tract is true, but beside the point. They're going extinct because of habitat destruction and, to a lesser degree, hunt. They were doing fine until those started.

Secondly, they are actually quite well adapted to their environment. The whole digestive tract thing for example tells us their ancestors were carnivores. But when they found themselves in what would later be the panda's natural environment, they switched to pure herbivore because that turned out to be more efficient. Even if they can't digest it fully. They even developed a thumb of sorts that helps them grab bamboo. That sounds like adaptation to me.

Quirks like the panda's digestive tract are not strange at all by the way. It's because evolution can never work from scratch, only with what is already there. So naming "less efficient" animals is actually quite easy. How about an ostrich? A big ass bird that can't even fly? And don't even get me started on the freakshow that was the first animals to go on land.
And just because there's room for improvement doesn't necessarily mean it's inefficient. Bringing it back to the panda and his bamboo: he can fully digest meat, but hunting takes a lot of effort and there isn't much prey to begin with. Bamboo on the other hand can easily be broken off and is (or was) absolutely everywhere, making the supply essentially limitless. So even if he can't fully digest it, it's still a way more efficient nutrient source than prey.

Finally you should know that the whole digestive tract thing is kind of an odd argument to begin with because there actually isn't a single animal alive that can fullly digest plant matter. Only a certain combination of bacteria can. Most herbivores use tricks though. Rabbits for instance make their food pass through their digestive tract twice by eating their droppings. And cows keep said bacteria in their stomachs. It's not 100% sure if the panda use any of those tricks but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they do.

Nalgas D. Lemur:
but we focus tons of resources on helping them because "they're cute". That same amount of money and effort could go toward helping multiple other more viable species/ecosystems that aren't effectively doomed to failure by their own design, but we don't do that because the others don't have as good PR. Would it be nice if we could save all of them? Absolutely. Is it practical/possible? I kind of doubt it, and I worry sometimes that we'll lose something important that would've been easier to save by prioritizing things the way we do.

Fair point but don't forget that the panda problem ties in to habitat destruction, deforestation, humanity's effect on the planet, etc. etc. Pandas are indeed prioritized somewhat because they make for a good flagship, but all the other aspects of the problem are definanlty not being ignored.

EDIT: typo's

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here