To be fair, as cute as they are, pandas are kind of too dumb to live and an evolutionary failure. They're carnivores in everything but diet, which is why they have to spend all their time and energy eating stuff that they don't have the digestive tract to effectively/efficiently get nutrients out of. Their borderline nonexistant reproductive rate hasn't done them any favors, either. If we didn't kill them off, either they'd do it themselves or something else that's actually competent at surviving would out compete them.
I've never seen that view of it, but it does seem surprisingly insightful and accurate. The problem is that we've caused some species to go extinct that wouldn't have, and so now we see ourselves as conservators of all species: "no more natural selection! Every species that now exists must continue to exist forever because if they cease to exist it's possible it might have been because of us!"
And, really, that sentiment is pretty true, too. It's possible that we affected pandas in some fundamental ways without realizing it: maybe we affected their dietary patterns before we tracked that sort of thing; maybe our pollution or development caused some of the reproductive issues. So if we let them die, it's possible that might be on our heads.
In the end it mostly doesn't cost us as a species that much to keep pandas alive, and I think that as a species we have a special love of biodiversity, and there are plenty of people who feel really strongly that pandas are worth preserving. So, in the end, I can't argue with that. I'm certainly not in favor of endangering species or causing them to go extinct. And if others want to preserve species that would have headed to extinction on their own, that's certainly not something I can object to, either. And pandas
are cute.
All that said: I agree with your quote.
