of the dodo. Today, over 20,000 more species are at risk of dying out,

but we simply don't have the time or resources to rescue them all. It's a tough situation,

but not a unique one – military medics, first responders, and ER workers regularly

make decisions like these, and a medical triage-like approach could help us decide which species

to save first. For example, we could prioritize those who

need help stat!, like the last 60 wild Javan rhinos teetering on the edge of extinction.

Alternatively, we could take a kind of save-the-president-first approach and focus on species vital to entire

ecosystems, like mangroves, whose groves support over a thousand species or otters, whose urchin-eating

keeps kelp forests healthy. Or, we could prioritize patients that have the best and cheapest chance

of long-term survival; New Zealand's Maud Island frogs, for example, could be rescued

from their invasive nemeses for the cost of keeping a panda alive in captivity for about

half a year. But so far, conservation decisions haven’t

been so calculated. For instance, giant pandas aren’t nearly as rare as Javan rhinos or

as critical to their ecosystems as otters and mangroves. Plus, they’re such reluctant

breeders and their bamboo forests are so fragmented that saving them has already required billions

of dollars and may mean keeping the species on permanent life support.

And yet these fuzzy-wuzzy bundles of cuteness pull at our heartstrings - and our wallets.

As the literal faces of conservation, pandas pull in big bucks for wildlife protection.

And they do share – a little. Money raised by the World Wildlife Fund does go to dozens

of conservation projects, but the majority of campaigns fronted by pandas or other charismatic

creatures are solely devoted to saving their symbolic species.

What’s more, keeping the spotlight focused on the plight of a few celebrities means the

demise of species with homelier faces - or no faces at all ... you’ve probably never

seen a campaign to save the the stinking cedar or the pygmy hog-sucking louse. But unlike

the celebrities, underdog species like these are often ideal triage candidates: they can

be simpler to resuscitate, less expensive to protect, and vital to their ecosystems

- their only flaw is inferior cuteness. Should we really let appearances decide who lives

and who dies, or should we take a more rational approach? The tradeoff is this: thinking rationally

when it comes to saving species may mean asking ourselves whether a world without pandas is

something we can bear.

we can bear.