When we arrived at the meeting place, the staff first sent us the Notice on Prohibiting Illegal Hunting and Operation of Terrestrial Wild Animals (Lin Fahu [2003] No.99) jointly issued by the State Forestry Administration, the Ministry of Public Security, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the General Administration of Customs and other departments 12, and the list of commercially domesticated and propagated terrestrial wild animals in various provinces.
I know that the purpose of this meeting is to implement the spirit of this notice, standardize the domestication and breeding of wild animals, draw up a list of animals that are allowed to operate and use, and publish it to the whole country. But the list submitted by the provinces in my hand really scared me. This list, excluding Guangdong and Guangxi, reached as many as 300! There are giant pandas, Asian elephants (reported in Fujian), golden monkeys, black-necked cranes (reported in Gansu), red-crowned cranes (reported in Fujian and Liaoning) and other star animals, as well as orangutans (reported in Fujian) and ostriches (reported in Inner Mongolia and other 20 Yu Sheng) from abroad, and of course, civet cats (reported in Hainan and other 17 provinces) which are famous for SARS. Ostrich, blue peacock, civet, sika deer and other animals have formed a considerable artificial breeding population, and their management and utilization are just right. It is really incredible to put so many rare wild animals on the dining table and counter, which can be eaten and sold. I looked at this report with disdain and couldn't help saying: How dare you open your teeth!
Thanks to the strict control of officials of the State Forestry Administration, they drastically deleted the list of grassroots reports. Shortly after the meeting began, it was already a "list of suggestions for domestication and breeding of terrestrial wild animals, with only 34 species", and my hanging heart finally fell to the ground.
First of all, Academician Ma of Northeast Forestry University and Deputy Director Wang Wei of the State Forestry Administration gave a comprehensive introduction to the background and the basic principles for drawing up this list: all terrestrial wild animals with mature artificial domestication and breeding technology, large stock, no dependence on wild resources as provenance and no violation of international restrictions will be approved for use, which is to put it bluntly, they will be included in the "blacklist" of edible and tradable.
The discussion was divided into four categories: animals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and insects. Starting from the deer family, "sika deer" was undoubtedly passed, because the national artificial captivity technology has long been mature and large-scale; "Red Deer" caused a warm response. Fan Zhiyong, director of the National Endangered Office, first proposed that there are many subspecies of red deer, such as Xinjiang Tarim red deer, which is highly endangered. Once the ban is lifted, the wild population will be wiped out. Results It was unanimously agreed to exclude Tarim subspecies with red deer on the available list.
Wild boar is a familiar species, widely distributed, grumpy, highly fertile and adaptable, so it often conflicts with people and is called "pest" by some people. In this regard, Deputy Director Wang Wei said a few fair words: We should not think that there are so many wild boars that we should kill them. In fact, because the range of human activities is constantly expanding, the natural habitat of animals is repeatedly squeezed, which leads to the cross distribution and contradiction between people and wild boar. Even if it is used, it can only be a hybrid of wild boar and domestic pig, such as Xiangshan, Ningbo, which has been successfully tried in this respect, with an annual output of more than1.20 thousand, which is very popular in the market. They only used a small number of boars, which did not put pressure on wild provenances. As a result, the "wild boar" included in the combat utilization list was limited to hybrids, which was praised by everyone, and a negative example of abuse was listed.
The wind of eating snakes is very arrogant in the whole country, especially in the south, which leads to fewer snakes and more rats, ecological imbalance and serious plague hidden dangers. Operators usually claim to be farmed. In this regard, experts attending the meeting suggested that the snake farm is purely deceptive. The snakes eaten in the game museum are all wild, not artificially propagated. Even if there is occasional breeding, there is no large-scale production, because it is impossible and impossible for farmers to pay such a long period and such a high price to breed snakes.
Snakes are reptiles. Yang Datong, an expert on amphibians and reptiles and a researcher at Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, pointed out that bullfrogs cannot be listed either. I was quite puzzled at the time. Aren't bullfrogs often sold in markets and restaurants? After his introduction, I suddenly realized that bullfrog is an amphibian with strong climbing ability, belonging to an exotic species, and it is easy to escape. Once it enters the wild, the consequences are unimaginable, and it will easily eat up the frog tadpoles in its place of origin, leading to the extinction of local species. The diners in the restaurant are mostly "pig frogs". Oh, it's a misplaced name. Therefore, in the final draft, we unanimously decided to choose "pig frog" instead of "bullfrog" in this catalogue.
Zhang Runzhi, a researcher at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, particularly emphasized the introduction of exotic species, calling for this principle to be mastered in the selection of this list, otherwise, once the introduction is improper and the management is out of control, species will become extinct, and we will become sinners through the ages.
Among the carnivores in the utilization list, there was originally a kind of "red fox", but several experts, led by Yu Changqing of WWF, questioned whether the red fox could be utilized. They believe that if it is included in the utilization list, it will pose a greater threat to similar wild species and do more harm than good. In a similar situation, although there are more than10,000 captive Chinese alligators, wild animals are in a highly endangered state. In the end, both the red fox and the Chinese alligator were deleted from the utilization list. Professor Zheng suggested that goldfinches should not be listed as users in the bird use list, because there is no artificial large-scale farming, so goldfinches are also exempt from the "blacklist".
As a representative of "Friends of Nature", I would like to convey to you Mr. Liang Congjie's views on animal protection: First, we should break through the outdated concept of "protection is for utilization", giving priority to protection and ecology. In my words, it is to establish the consciousness of maintaining "the same body of life" Second, we should break the practice that protection is limited to rare species and expand the scope of protection to general species, that is, we can not expand the scope of utilization at will or narrow the scope of protection easily. Third, the concept of "wild animals" should be defined by law as soon as possible, so as to solve the vague problems of "wild" and "artificial", especially to prevent the phenomenon of being caught from the wild and raised temporarily, pretending to be artificial and confusing. 2003、7、25
By taking the opportunity to speak, I will also tell you everything: First, the cultivation of exotic species should prevent blind introduction and side effects on local species, such as the case of the extinction of Rana tigris in Hainan caused by the introduction of Rana tigris in Thailand. Two, the use of domesticated species, it is strictly prohibited to involve wild species, such as Chinese alligator, sika deer, civet, etc. And it is impossible to kill wild individuals because breeding is prohibited. I even worry that if these animals are included in this list, will they be sentenced to death for endangering the wild?
But in fact, judging from the history of human domesticated animals and international artificial feeding practice, the status of these artificially raised wild animals is similar to that of poultry and livestock. That's why there is such a demonstration meeting today. Active breeding and rational utilization are still conducive to alleviating the pressure of human desire on wild individuals. It is unrealistic to talk only about protection and ignore the reality of utilization. Allowing people to eat farmed game, from the perspective of earth ethics, is to tolerate small evils and achieve great goodness. After all, small evils are unbearable, and great goodness is hard to survive. For many years, protection and utilization have been a pair of contradictions, but they are not irreconcilable. Is it blindly blocking, or should it be combined with unblocking? This is a realistic problem involving the relationship between man, nature and animals. We shouldn't stick to the rules and be reckless. After all, we can't just talk about human nature, we should follow the heaven, don't talk about heaven, eat game and squander natural things. Gluttony, unbridled, sick and have to go to the hospital, hurt yourself.
In 2005, an "environmental storm" broke out in the mainland of China, and 30 projects under construction with a total investment exceeding 1 179 billion yuan were stopped by the State Environmental Protection Administration, including three projects of the Three Gorges Corporation, which are also ministerial units. The reason is that these projects have not undergone environmental impact assessment and belong to illegal projects that have not been approved for construction.
Environmental Deterioration There is no turning back for China's environmental problems, which did not start today. As early as 1990s, the problem of environmental pollution was very serious. For example, the Huaihe River Basin. In the 1990s, five types of water quality accounted for 80%, and the whole Huaihe River was like a huge sewage ditch all the year round. 1995, the economic loss caused by environmental pollution reached187.5 billion yuan.
According to the calculation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, the losses caused by environmental pollution and ecological destruction have accounted for 15% of the total GDP, which means 9% economic growth on the one hand and 15% loss rate on the other. Environmental problems are not only the problem of sustainable development in China, but also the devil that devours economic achievements.
At present, China's desertified land has reached more than 2.674 million square kilometers; The cultivated land and homes of nearly 400 million people in 47/kloc-0 counties in China 18 provinces and autonomous regions are threatened by desertification to varying degrees, and desertification is still increasing at a rate of more than 10000 square kilometers per year.
Among the seven major water systems, the water quality with no use value has exceeded 40%. More than 400 of the 668 cities in China are short of water. Many of them are caused by water pollution. For example, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province is located at the intersection of Yongjiang River, Yaojiang River and Fenghua River. However, due to water pollution, when the water is most scarce, it is necessary to rely on water tankers to run around the clock to transport the water from rural rivers to various enterprises in the city.
The average industrial added value of China is 6,543,800 yuan, which requires 330 cubic meters of water consumption and produces 230 cubic meters of sewage. Every time a GDP of 654.38 billion yuan is created, 288,000 tons of wastewater will be discharged. There is also a lot of domestic sewage. More than 80% of them will be directly discharged into rivers without treatment, otherwise there will be no water available in China in 10.
The urban population of China13 breathes seriously polluted air, and the land of13 is eroded by acid rain. In economically developed Zhejiang Province, the acid rain coverage rate has reached 100%. The frequency of acid rain is 1 1% in Shanghai and 12% in Jiangsu. In central China and some southern cities, such as Yibin, Huaihua, Shaoxing, Zunyi, Ningbo and Wenzhou, the frequency of acid rain exceeds 90%.
The maximum allowable emission of sulfur dioxide for basically eliminating acid rain pollution in China is120,000 ~140,000 tons. In 2003, the national sulfur dioxide emissions reached 265,438 0.587 million tons, an increase of 65,438 0.02% compared with 2002, of which industrial emissions increased by 65,438 0.04.7%. At the current rate of economic development. As well as the way and intensity of pollution control, by 2020, the sulfur dioxide emitted by thermal power plants alone will reach more than 2 1 10,000 tons, and the total emission will exceed the atmospheric environmental capacity 1 times, which will be a serious disaster to the ecological environment and people's health.
65438127 October, it was predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the sudden environmental crisis in human history would probably cause the greatest damage to the economic and social system in the near future if it was not rectified.
There is a saying that pollution control is in a dilemma. In order to improve the environment while developing the economy, the investment in environmental protection must reach more than 0.5% of 65438+GDP. However, this is under the condition that environmental protection is already very good. In China, according to Shanghai's experience, in order to effectively manage the environment, the investment in environmental protection must account for more than 3% of GDP. In the past 20 years, China's annual investment in environmental protection was 0.5% in the first half of 1990s, and only a little more than 1% in recent years. Environmental protection is a kind of "luxury consumption", with large investment and small contribution to GDP. Therefore, some special funds originally used for environmental protection have also been used for other purposes.
At present, China is in a dilemma on environmental issues: without governance, the future cannot be guaranteed; If we really want to manage it, we need large-scale investment, and the immediate economy is unbearable.
It has been calculated that the enterprises around Dianchi Lake in Yunnan Province have only created several billion yuan of output value in the past 20 years, but it takes at least tens of billions of yuan to initially restore the water quality of Dianchi Lake, which is the fiscal revenue of Yunnan Province for one year. Small paper mills in the Huaihe River Basin have a cumulative output value of only 50 billion in 20 years. However, to control the pollution caused by it, even if the main stream reaches the minimum irrigation water standard, it needs to invest 300 billion yuan. It will not only take a terrible number, but also take at least 100 years to restore the three types of water quality in the 1970 s.
From the microscopic point of view, in the past 20 years, domestic manufacturing industry can only tap its potential in two aspects: first, wages, and second, environmental protection, without relying on technological progress to reduce energy consumption and costs. The simplest, such as cement production, needs to increase the 8 yuan cost per ton of cement, accounting for 5% of the ex-factory price of cement. The textile industry discharges more than10 billion cubic meters of wastewater every year. If it is to be treated, it needs 1.2~ 1.8 yuan per ton. Increase the production cost by 5%. And most enterprises simply don't have that high profit rate. Therefore, we can only fight guerrilla warfare on environmental protection issues: either we don't build any wastewater treatment facilities, or we put sewage into the treatment pool during the day and discharge it into the river at night when no one is around, which can save a lot of money. In the disorderly competition in the market, this 5% cost. It often determines the profit and loss, life and death of an enterprise.
The "two highs and one low" in China's environmental law enforcement-high law-abiding cost, high law-enforcement cost and low illegal cost-also contributed to this tendency. Under normal circumstances, the environmental protection department needs 500,000 yuan to collect evidence for an illegal smuggling incident, and the fine that eventually falls on the illegal enterprise is only 50,000 yuan, including the so-called "environmental storm" that is blowing fiercely.
Some mega-power station projects with investment of several billion yuan started construction without authorization in violation of the EIA, and the final fine was only 200,000 yuan. For a project with an investment of over 1 100 million yuan, the fine of 200,000 yuan is only 9 Niu Yi cents. How strong is this punishment for illegal activities? Therefore, the environmental protection law has always been called the "tofu law".
An environmental storm will involve hundreds of thousands of enterprises, which will inevitably lead to bankruptcy of a large number of enterprises, unemployment of a large number of people, a substantial increase in enterprise costs, and the domestic price index will quickly break through double digits. Therefore, both macro and micro costs are actually unbearable.
Four factors hinder the huge resistance of environmental governance to environmental protection departments in the process of law enforcement. Pan Yue, deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Administration, summed up four reasons:
First of all, some places don't have a deep understanding of Scientific Outlook on Development and simply pursue economic growth. Some projects with high energy consumption and heavy pollution, such as small smelting, small ferroalloy and small chemical industry, which are explicitly prohibited, have actually shown a spreading trend in some places.
Secondly, in attracting investment, some local governments unilaterally emphasize simplifying examination and approval and handling relevant procedures within a time limit. No matter whether the project will be polluted or not, as long as the investment is approved. In some places, there are illegal phenomena such as "the will of the head" and "getting on the bus first and buying tickets later" in the environmental impact examination and approval of construction projects.
Third, the quality of environmental impact assessment needs to be improved. Some EIA units do not insist on scientific evaluation, dare not speak with objective facts and scientific data, and the evaluation conclusions are vague and ambiguous. They pushed the conclusion of the environmental feasibility of the project to the examination and approval department, and even a few EIA units falsified, fabricated or tampered with data, or concealed facts, which seriously affected the implementation of the environmental impact assessment system, made the environmental impact assessment a mere formality, and lost the minimum scientific and fair nature of the third-party consulting agency.
Finally, information disclosure and public participation are insufficient. China's current environmental impact assessment system is dominated by the government, and it is obviously not enough to supervise a large number of construction projects with limited government power.
In fact, the resistance encountered by EIA is driven by the economic interests behind it.
Set off a real "environmental storm"
China is a big country with little room for manoeuvre in the environment, and it is also a rising country after the global resources and markets are basically divided up. It is impossible for China, like some pioneer countries, to wait until the environment is extremely bad.
However, China is also a developing country, and China is bound to develop its economy first and then control pollution.
The history of all countries in the world shows that there is a similar law between economic growth and environmental change: in the process of industrialization, a country will have a period of rapid growth of environmental pollution with GDP, especially in the era of heavy chemical industry; However, when GDP grows to a certain extent, with the upgrading of industrial structure, residents' willingness to pay for the environment increases. After reaching the turning point, the pollution level will suddenly drop with the growth of GDP until the pollution level returns to below the environmental capacity. This is the so-called environmental Kuznets curve, which was the law of Japan's development in that year.
There is no doubt that it is impossible for China to cross such an era of heavy chemical industry. Because China has a large population and a large country, it is impossible for Finland to directly enter the high-tech era with the help of global division of labor under the condition of underdeveloped manufacturing.
In the late 1990s, the author returned to his hometown in southern Jiangsu. When I was a child, the scene that the river was clear and I could reach four townships and eight towns by boat was gone forever. To my surprise, the main factor causing this situation is the most common domestic garbage. In China, even if the industry is underdeveloped, the pollutants brought by population growth are enough to make the environment worse to an unbearable degree. Even if we want to control such pollution, we need a lot of investment and economic foundation.
China still has a long way to go in pollution control. It needs to act in accordance with the law to stop the occurrence of vicious environmental incidents and slow down the pace of environmental deterioration. What kind of environmental protection concept should we hold?
What kind of ecological and environmental protection concept and resource development concept should we hold? Are environmental protection and resource development irreconcilable contradictions? I don't think so. Because their goals are the same, all for the survival of mankind. Therefore, scientific ecological environment protection and resource development can realize the unity of opposites.
I believe that all people who care about environmental problems have a sincere heart and hope that our future generations can survive better. We should not doubt those who exploit natural resources in order to make people in poor areas get rid of poverty and get rich as soon as possible. They also have a heart to protect and improve the survival of people in poor areas. Only those who strongly advocate protection think about the long-term survival of all mankind, while those who actively advocate development think about solving the survival problems of people in local areas at present. What reason do we have to deprive local people of their right to subsistence and development?
Over the years, with the propaganda efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the general public has a certain degree of environmental awareness, which is the credit of various environmental protection organizations and people, but having environmental awareness does not mean knowing environmental protection. Many of us are environmentally conscious, but out of consideration for our own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment, we are unwilling to consciously abide by environmental standards. For example, those of us who are not worried about food and clothing, in order to taste the game, to wear high-grade fur fashion and to show off our wealth, have promoted and stimulated the emergence and development of the wildlife trading market, making our exploitation and utilization of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the consumers who should really be blamed are those who have no worries about food and clothing, not those who have no food and clothing and have to ask for natural resources in order to survive, and they should not be accused of developing and utilizing natural resources in order to get people in poor areas out of trouble as soon as possible.
Why did environmental problems not attract people's attention at least before the industrial revolution, but now it has become a global urgent problem that is increasingly affecting human survival? This is because in the past, the demand for natural resources and various kinds of garbage produced by human beings have not exceeded the bearing capacity of nature, but now, the over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large number of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded the bearing capacity of nature. How did this happen? It is the constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment after solving the problem of food and clothing. To solve the environmental problems completely, we must restrain people's expanding desire for pleasure. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing is to advocate a moral concept of helping the poor for the rich and lead a simple life among us urbanites who have no worries about food and clothing and enjoy modern civilized life. Those who live in poor and backward areas are backward and simple enough to make a living. How to solve the problem of their survival and development?
We should oppose dogmatism and extreme environmental protection. On the surface, this kind of thought seems to be correct and extremely chaotic, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because it deprives people in poor and backward areas of their right to subsistence and development.
In remote, poor and backward areas, local people hunt, cut down trees and burn wasteland in order to survive. It is precisely because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them that they are still following this backward lifestyle. Under such living conditions, what do you want them to eat without hunting or cutting down trees? Burn what? With what? Some of our environmentalists always indiscriminately criticize the development and utilization of natural resources by local governments and local residents in these areas, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is, you can't cut down the virgin forests here, kill wild animals, build dams on rivers here, and keep the original features here. You can promote economic development by developing green tourism. But at present, our national quality and environmental awareness are not high. Is tourism really green? Will the development of tourism not cause damage to the ecological environment? Let's see what happens. 1. In the past, local people only produced a small amount of domestic garbage, and there was almost no non-degradable garbage; Nowadays, due to the influx of a large number of tourists, a lot of domestic garbage has been brought, especially those plastic food packaging bags that were rarely seen in the past; Whose fault is this? 2. Because tourists want to taste the local game, the original non-existent wildlife trade came into being; In the past, local people only hunted and excavated wild animals and plants in small quantities to meet their own consumption; Now, in order to meet the needs of tourists and increase their economic income, they begin to kill and dig wild animals and plants in large numbers; Whose fault is this? 3. In the past, the local people were simple and sincere; Now, with all kinds of tourists, all kinds of bizarre culture, all kinds of fake and shoddy goods and colorful liars brought by illegal traders, the local people have benefited a lot from deception, and the folk customs are no longer simple and sincere; Whose fault is this?
The Lugu Lake scenic spot in Yunnan is such a living example, which was reported by CCTV. However, this report simply blames the relevant departments of the local government. How many people have thought about who brought all this? This situation has not spared almost all scenic spots. I have no objection to developing tourism here. What I want to say is that developing tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development. Perhaps, developing tourism will do more damage to the ecological environment than developing natural resources. In fact, tourism itself is also a kind of utilization of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of availability, but a question of how to develop it.
The protection of the ecological environment should not be blindly pursued intact, and nothing can be changed. People who hold this extreme environmental protection view, while caring about the environment, ignore the problems of survival and development, especially those in remote, poor and backward areas. They idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, making it lose its vitality. Such people eat and drink by themselves and enjoy the benefits of modern civilization in the city without any worries. Some of them have been to remote, poor and backward areas, let alone living and working there. A few people have been there. It was just a trip in a luxury SUV. They just want to take this opportunity to reserve a back garden for the city people to eat, drink and explore. According to their view, human beings may have to return to primitive society to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking can only bind us and make society stagnate.
Once I went to Dulongjiang, Yunnan to take photos. I was deeply impressed by the well-preserved virgin forests and clear streams and rivers there, and I was indelibly impressed by the poor living conditions of local residents. However, what impressed me the most was what a border guard said to me: "It's green mountains and green waters for you tourists, but for those of us who are here every day, it's a wasteland." Please note that this is just the words of a person who only needs to serve here for two years. What will happen to people who have lived here for generations? This sentence is like a slap in the face for me, which makes me awake a lot when I once shouted environmental protection.
We can't regard all the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as the destruction of the ecological environment, which is the real selfishness and dogma. We are opposed to blind and excessive destructive development regardless of long-term interests. We have made an ecological assessment of those who can help local people get rid of poverty and become rich and civilized, taking into account the ecological recovery after development, and orderly, scientific and reasonable development will not be arbitrarily accused and stopped. In fact, as long as it is developed scientifically and reasonably, the partial and temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disasters, but will form a new ecological landscape and even improve the original harsh natural environment. This example is not without it. Far away is Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal running through the north and south, and near is Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and Lubuge Hydropower Station in Yunnan.
In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not simply to blame and stop the development and utilization of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the whole people, especially to improve the environmental awareness of modern urban people who live in cities, lead civilized lives and have no worries about food and clothing. People who have no environmental awareness in remote and poor areas do little damage to the environment, and in order to ensure their own survival, some can even say that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecological environment. On the contrary, we educated modern urbanites, for pleasure, have stimulated the development of some luxury goods industries, such as furs, high-grade wooden furniture, game restaurants, disposable utensils and so on. The development of these industries has indeed caused a thorough and devastating blow to the ecological environment, and the talents in modern civilized cities are indeed the direct and indirect killers of the ecological environment.
Imagine if there are two people, one is a rich man who has no worries about food and clothing, the other is a poor man who has no shelter and food, and a cherished wild animal appears in front of them. The rich kill it to enjoy fur and game, while the poor kill it to keep out the cold and fill their stomachs. Are both behaviors to blame?
What kind of environmental protection is "rational"
-comment on Charles krauthammer's save nature, but only for mankind.
With the general deterioration of the environment, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with various suggestions, proposals, rules and laws on environmental protection, some people suggest choosing them. For example, a passage in an English book of a university advocates such a view, which is called "rational environmentalism", and rationally declares that human beings "protect the environment not for nature, but for ourselves", so human beings should "make emergency adjustments only when the living environment is threatened". In order to win support, the theory "does not require people to make sacrifices for other creatures".
Humans do protect the environment for themselves, but the problem is how to protect it. This article claims that we should "make urgent adjustments when the living environment is threatened", that is, we should wait until we can't live any longer before considering protecting the environment. Who makes the environment unbearable? It is true that there are factors of the earth's own climate change cycle, but in just a few hundred years since the industrial revolution, it is mainly human beings who have made the environment uninhabitable. In the face of the worsening environmental crisis, it is definitely not the right attitude of a "rational" person to let the environment continue to deteriorate on the pretext that some environmental problems are not urgent without reviewing his own mistakes and changing his erroneous concept of treating the environment as a "free resource".
Facts have proved that adopting the environmental pollution control method of "pollution first, then treatment" will cause a lot of waste of funds-because the income from manufacturing pollution is often less than the cost of eliminating pollution. However, because this is only "external diseconomy", the author does not have to pay the bill immediately, and he will have no interest in eliminating these pollutions. Then, we will see a strange phenomenon: while the author is willing to pay for the "external diseconomy" of others, he adopts an indifferent attitude and creates a huge amount of "external diseconomy" for others and even his descendants.
Another strangeness of this article is that "people are not required to make sacrifices for other creatures". Imagine what it would be if people were asked to make sacrifices for other animals-maybe just some money, or just changing their hobby of eating game. We know that when there is a conflict between creatures, either they both lose, or one side always has to make a "sacrifice". Since human beings don't "sacrifice", they have to let other creatures sacrifice. How should they sacrifice for mankind? Simple-give your life.
The author says that he loves the Arctic reindeer (I really don't know what he said), but in order to exploit oil, he does not hesitate to destroy the reindeer breeding grounds in Alaska-because it can avoid war. Not to mention that exploiting Alaska's oil can't avoid war at all; Even if war can be avoided, it is really worth considering whether it is rational to choose money between race continuation and money because human oil is cheaper and Arctic reindeer can't breed.
Similarly, the author loves spotted owls (I hope the fewer creatures he likes, the better), but for the livelihood of loggers, he does not hesitate to support them to cut down forests and destroy spotted owls. I don't know why the author holds such a strange logic-it seems that loggers can't find new jobs without logging, lose all economic sources without logging, can't survive without logging, and have to "sell" spotted owls for their "survival problem".
In the author's eyes, as long as the interests of human beings conflict with those of other creatures, even if the precious lives of other creatures can be exchanged at the expense of human beings, he will think that human beings are more important than other creatures. This is the so-called "rationality"