First of all, I want to express my opinion. Brother Yeshi is undoubtedly wrong.

But the mistake made by the wild food guy was not picking snow rabbits, but randomly picking and hunting wild animals and plants.

To be precise, the focus of this matter should not be on whether snow rabbits are rare or valuable, but on the publicity that the natural ecological environment should be protected as much as possible in the wild, and nothing should be left or taken away.

But while you are criticizing the wild food guy, you cannot escape the blame of the academic circle.

The reasons are as follows: It is indeed not enough to just use the law as the minimum bottom line, but is it correct to take the requirements of botanical experts as the bottom line for daily entertainment mukbang?

This kind of non-common sense and ethical requirement should originally be restricted by laws and regulations.

In principle, I agree with the respondent's other points, so I only excerpted some of them.

But it's absolutely wrong to shirk the blame. Why do you mean that others have other things to do?

Isn’t it business to protect your precious research objects?

If you academics don’t ask the government to legislate for protection, and if you don’t supplement and revise the list of endangered species, then who else can do it?

This reminds me of a feminist seminar I attended when I was in college. The discussion was lively, but when I asked how you were going to actually do something, everyone fell silent.

After all, people who go to college are among the top 10% of people in China. If you don’t do it, who will?

It is useless to speak more righteously than anyone else. The flaws in these lists and the gaps in the law are the dereliction of duty on your part as academia.