Pandas are wonderful animals. They are unique among mammals in having a sixth (opposable) digit, they fill an ecological niche in Chinese bamboo forests, and they are cute when they're little. Because they are so cute, they are one of the endangered animals often mentioned in environmental propaganda. But although I don't want to see them go, I don't think it matters if they do.
One of the major facets of the evolutionary process is natural selection. This is often referred to as "survival of the fittest", but I think is best described as "competition". Animals within a species, or within and ecology, compete for access to resources. Those which are more successful thrive and become dominant. When there is a shortage, the less successful die out. Humanity is unique (to our knowledge), in that we consciously and to a significant degree alter our environment. This means that since we began to use sophisticated tools, we have gradually but enormously changed the features of the environments we inhabit. We are even beginning to change the environments we don't inhabit through a) trying to inhabit them; b) trying to get resources from them; and c) polluting the planet in ways which affect them. Because we are unique in doing so, we do not think of it as "natural". Instead we talk about "unnatural selection", when we breed animals for specific characteristics, and lack a term to describe selection by competition for resources we use. When we clear a rainforest for lumber and land, this is not thought of as competition between our species and every other species in the area, which is what it is. It is thought of as "habitat destruction", if you are of environmental leanings, and "profit" if you aren't. Humanity has apparently escaped evolution. If we are affecting other species that's not fair. It's tantamount to (badly) advising one player in a chess game, or stealing half the property cards in monopoly. Why is humanity now unnatural?
For centuries the idea has existed that humanity is separate from the rest of life on earth. We are the pinnacle of the Tree of Life. We consider ourselves unquestionably superior, even if we have not yet found a specific reason why (the jury is still out on intelligence, tool-use, empathy, even creativity). Somehow we have also come to believe we are responsible for other life-forms. Perhaps it is the echo of our kindergarten teachers, telling us to "put things away where you found them". Perhaps it is a remnant of the "white man's burden" idea. Perhaps it is tied up with our empathy - they're in trouble, we can help them, we should help them. I don't propose to know the answer why, but humanity feels responsible to leave the earth as we found it, which is pretty much a losing battle. Even if we hadn't caused major changes to the planet, the planet changes without our willing it to. Evolution happens. Continents drift. The atmosphere heats up or cools down. A thousand years after we are gone (an uncomfortable thought, but it is inevitable), the planet will be essentially the same as at some other time in its history. And the ecologies will be different, with the same patterns. Since the time we define as the beginning of humanity (which is still debated, but the point stands) we have contributed to the extinction of thousands of species. I see reason for regret - there is diversity we do not remember and cannot imagine. I do not see reason for guilt - we competed with other species for resources, won, and filled the ecological niches we had left empty. This is entirely natural. I does not matter to the planet as a whole if we are the only mammal left, or even the only vertebrate. Life will go on, starting again from bacteria if necessary.
On an evolutionary timescale, the extinction of the panda does not matter. We don't think in terms of millions of years. We think in decades, centuries at most. We will miss the panda. The planet will not.
A Piece of String: The ramblings of a philosopher (in the old sense of the word)
