what kind of eco-environmental protection concept and resource development concept should we hold? Are environmental protection and resource development an irreconcilable contradiction? I think not. Because their goals are the same, they are all for the survival of mankind. Therefore, scientific eco-environmental protection and resource development can achieve unity of opposites.
I believe that all people who care about environmental issues have a sincere heart for our future generations to survive better. We should not doubt those who exploit natural resources in order to make people in poverty-stricken areas get rid of poverty and get rich as soon as possible. They also have a boxing heart to ensure and improve the survival of people in poverty-stricken areas. Only those who strongly advocate protection consider the long-term survival of the whole mankind, while those who actively advocate development want to solve the survival problem of people in local areas at present. Do we have any reason to deprive local people of their right to survival and development?
In recent years, with the propaganda efforts of environmental protection organizations, the general public has already got a certain environmental awareness, which is the credit of environmental protection organizations and people, but having environmental awareness does not mean knowing environmental protection. There are still many of us who are aware of environmental protection, but out of consideration for their immediate interests and greed for enjoyment, they are unwilling to consciously abide by environmental protection standards. For example, some of us who don't have to worry about our food and clothing have promoted and stimulated the emergence and development of the wildlife trading market in order to taste the game, wear high-grade fur fashion and show off our wealth, which has made our exploitation and utilization of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the consumers who really should 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, nor should they be blamed for developing and utilizing natural resources in order to get people in poverty-stricken areas out of trouble as soon as possible.
why did the environmental problem 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, human's demand for natural resources and all kinds of garbage produced have not exceeded the tolerance of nature, but now, human's over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large number of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded the tolerance 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 completely solve the environmental problems, we must curb people's ever-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 a modern civilized life. Those who live in poor and backward areas, their lives are backward and simple enough, and they have become so simple that it is difficult to make a living. How to solve their survival and development problems?
We should oppose that dogmatic and extreme idea of environmental protection. On the surface, this kind of thinking seems correct and extremely confusing, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because they deprive people in poor and backward areas of their right to survival and development.
In remote poor and backward areas, local people hunt, cut down trees and burn wasteland for survival. It is precisely because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them that they still follow this backward way of life. Under such living conditions, what do you want them to eat without hunting and 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-meaning mistake, that is, you can't cut down the virgin forests here, kill wild animals, build dams on the rivers here, and preserve 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 developing 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; Now, due to the influx of a large number of tourists, it brings a lot of domestic garbage, 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 nonexistent wildlife trade came into being; In the past, local people only hunted and dug wild animals and plants in small quantities to satisfy 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, local people were simple and sincere; Now, with all kinds of tourists, all kinds of bizarre off-mountain cultures, all kinds of fake and shoddy goods and colorful cheat people brought by illegal traders, the local people have benefited a lot from deceptive means, 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 accuses the relevant local government departments. How many people have thought about who brought all this? This situation has not spared almost all scenic spots. I am not against developing tourism here. What I want to say is that developing tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development. Maybe, 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 whether or not it can be obtained, 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 view of environmental protection ignore the problems of survival and development while caring about the environment, especially those in remote poor and backward areas. They idealize and dogmatize environmental protection and make it lose its vitality. This kind of people eat and drink themselves, and enjoy the benefits of modern civilization in the city without worry. Some of them have been to remote poor and backward areas, let alone live and work there. A few people have been there, and that's just taking a trip in a luxury off-road vehicle. They just want to take this opportunity to reserve a back garden for city people to have fun and explore after eating and drinking. According to their point of 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 traveled to Dulong River in Yunnan Province to take photos. I was deeply impressed by the well-preserved virgin forests and clear streams and rivers there, and the poor living conditions of the local residents also left me an indelible impression. However, what impressed me the most was a passage that a border guard said to me: "Here are green mountains and green waters for you tourists, but for those of us who are here every day, it is into the badlands." Please note that this is just the words of a person who only needs to serve here for two years. What will happen to those who have lived here for generations? This sentence is like a slap in the face to me, which makes me, who once shouted environmental protection, wake up a lot.
We can't regard all the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as the destruction of the ecological environment, which is really selfish and dogmatic. What we are opposed to is the blind and excessive destructive development that ignores the long-term interests, and the ecological assessment has been made for those who can make the local people get rid of poverty and become rich and step into civilization, taking into account the ecological recovery after development, and the orderly, scientific and reasonable development will not be arbitrarily accused and stopped. In fact, as long as it is developed scientifically and reasonably, that kind of partial and temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disaster, but on the contrary, it will form a new ecological landscape and even improve the original harsh natural environment. Such examples are not without. Far away are Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal running through the north and south, and near are Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and Lubuge Hydropower Station in Yunnan.
in terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not to simply and rudely criticize 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, live in civilization and have no worries about food and clothing. Those who have no awareness of environmental protection 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 have stimulated the development of some luxury industries such as fur, high-grade wooden furniture, game catering and disposable utensils in order to enjoy themselves. The development of these industries has really caused a thorough and devastating blow to the ecological environment, and modern civilized urban talents are really direct and indirect killers of the ecological environment.
Imagine that there are two people, one is a rich man who has no worries about food and clothing, and the other is a poor man who has no shelter and no food. A cherished wild animal appears in front of them, and the rich man kills it to enjoy fur and game, while the poor man kills it to keep out the cold and fill his stomach. Should both behaviors be blamed?
what kind of environmental protection is "rational"
—— Comments on Saving Nature, But Only for Man by Charles Krauthammer
With the widespread environmental deterioration in time, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with all kinds of suggestions, proposals, rules and laws on environmental protection, some people propose to choose them. For example, a text in a college English book advocates such a view called "rational environmentalism", which rationally declares that human beings "protect the environment not for nature, but for ourselves", so human beings should "make urgent 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".
It is true that human beings protect the environment for "ourselves", 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 to say, we should wait until we can't live any longer before thinking about protecting the environment. Who made the environment unbearable? Indeed, there are factors of the earth's own climate change cycle, but in the short hundreds of years since the industrial revolution, it is mainly human beings themselves who have made the environment uninhabitable. In the face of the worsening environmental crisis day by day, it is definitely not the right attitude of a "rational" person not to review his own mistakes and change the wrong concept of regarding the environment as a "free resource", but to let the environment continue to deteriorate on the pretext that some environmental problems are not urgent.
it has been proved that the environmental pollution control mode of "pollution first, then treatment" will cause a lot of waste of funds-because the benefits obtained by manufacturing pollution are often less than the cost of eliminating pollution. However, since this is only "external diseconomy" and the author does not have to pay the bill immediately, 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 strange point in this article is that "people are not required to make sacrifices for other creatures". Imagine if people were asked to make "sacrifices" for other animals, what would be the "sacrifices"-probably just some money, or just changing the hobby of eating game. We know that when there is a conflict between creatures, either they both lose, or one of them always has to make a "sacrifice". Now that human beings don't "sacrifice", they have to let other creatures sacrifice. How should they sacrifice for mankind? It's simple-give your life.
The author says that he loves Arctic reindeer (I really don't know how he said this), but in order to exploit oil, he does not hesitate to destroy reindeer breeding grounds in Alaska-because it can avoid war. Not to mention the fact that the exploitation of 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 racial continuation and money because human oil is cheaper and Arctic reindeer cannot reproduce.
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 the forest and exterminate 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, and they lose all their financial resources without logging, so they can't survive without logging, so they have to "sell" the spotted owl 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 "rational" concept of environmental protection. In this "rational" concept of environmental protection, we can't see any "rational" shadow. Through the grandiose packaging, we can only see an inexplicable domineering attitude of "being the only one" and a terrible disregard for letting other creatures go extinct for a little economic benefit.
The author says that environmental protection for things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety is "luxury environmental protection", and "luxury environmental protection" is good only if it can be achieved at a small cost. However, is there anything related to environmental protection that can be achieved at a small price? Hardly. In other words, the author will not support environmental protection for things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety.
do we need such a "rational environmentalism"? This kind of "rational environmental protection" is actually to wait for the environment to deteriorate until we can't wait any longer, and then Qi Xin will work together to alleviate an environmental problem. On the one hand, environmental problems emerge one after another, and the speed of emergence is getting faster and faster; On the other hand, the speed of alleviating environmental problems lags far behind the speed of its production. We could have contained some problems in the bud, but those who are "rational and environmentally friendly" have to wait until the pollution is out of control. It can be said that this "reason" has surpassed the understanding ability of ordinary people.
what kind of environmental protection is rational? That is the environmentally friendly way of doing things that the author regards as "emotional". To protect the environment, we must love nature, not regard it as the object of our "utilization"; To protect the environment, it is necessary to eliminate environmental problems in the bud, rather than allowing them to expand day by day. Such environmental protection is truly rational environmental protection.
June 5th, 2114 was the 33rd World Environment Day. The United Nations Environment Program has determined the theme of World Environment Day this year as: Every man is responsible for the survival of the ocean (Wanted! Seas and Oceans—— Dead or Alive), calling on the international community to attach importance to marine environmental protection and take active actions to leave a clean ocean for mankind.
China has more than 18,111 kilometers of mainland coastline and more than 6,511 coastal islands, which are designated as 211 nautical miles according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.