What's the point of this thesis or these supposed ethical dilemmas and emergencies? What exactly are you solving or demonstrating? Do you seriously expect to ever be put into such a situation? If the lesson/idea is you are supposed to sacrifice random individuals for the sake of Pandas then are you living up that ideal? How do you think this would apply to say climate alarmism where environmentalists do claim that the world - including Pandas - are at risk of extinction?

How might you extend your logic? Why stop at Pandas? Why not any other animal or value? What about something unique? Since there's only one Mona Lisa would it be preferable for a person to die than to lose such a treasure? Why stop at one individual? How many people would it not be worth killing off for the sake of your value?