super music master

"Earnistic division? You can be sure?"

Hearing that the blonde man said that it might be the enchantment division, Johnson's face, who had always been calm, couldn't help but change slightly, asked ...

"I'm sure, just blocking each other's mind, but it does not affect a person's normal health. This is not a common use of words for the enchantment.

Even if the relationship between the two is good, the blonde man can't help but be a little uncomfortable.

And Johnson ignored the tone of the other party. When he heard the other party said, his face couldn't help but feel a little bit sinking. He was also in a hurry, so he asked to ask. You know that he is known as the two fox combination, just like the fox.

They all have a strong sensation, whether it is strength, energy fluctuations, or even unknown dangers. As long as they occur, they all have a great possible sense.

Now that the other party is determined now, then things must be eight. Nine are not left.

But now that there is a book in the middle of the enchantment, then things may be more troublesome, and his mood naturally has some heavy. In addition to the weird ability of the enchantment division, in fact, because the church side also allows him

Teacher, when he heard this explanation at the beginning, Johnson felt that he had heard it wrong. After all, in the church, once he became an enemy, no matter what the other person was, he had to kill him. How can he shot now?

After thinking about it, he may think that it is the purpose with the protection of wild animals in reality.

What is the reason for protecting wild animals? There are many differences between animals and humans. According to the perspective of evolved biologists Doukins and others, the biggest difference may be that animals lack culture. Here, the definition of culture is "have nothing to do with genetic, but it can be possible

The behavior mode of imitation and inheritance ".

In human society, cultural factors are gradually overwhelming the genetic and physiological factors. We are getting stronger and stronger for our self -transformation, and the important surnames of congenital genetic qualities are getting smaller and smaller. When we say "everyone is unique", this

Most of the unique surnames are derived from the day after tomorrow. And the contribution of a person to society is almost all from the cultural field: his life will create countless new ideas and new things, affecting everyone around him; and when he dies, he dies

At the time, even if his blood was inherited, the countless thoughts that had not been expressed would disappear forever. In contrast, his genetic contribution to human beings seemed insignificant.

However, the vast majority of wild animals in the environment can go back to its genes; even if the cultural heritage between individuals exists, the impact is usually minimal.

That's because their genetic characteristics are different, not because they have experienced different wolf group history, and there are different wolf group culture. Even if there are animals, they have learned complicated behaviors from humans because they get along with humans.

It is almost impossible to teach the "human skills" you have learned to other animals to change the original culture. A human culture that does not adapt to its environment can lead to the destruction of a civilization.

Such a huge effect.

Therefore, the value of wild animals is more valued in its genes, and the continuation of the population itself is more critical. The death of individuals is inevitable, but the gene can be survived by the genetic library through the population.

The individual of wild animals is more of a means of protecting populations, and it is not a purpose. Therefore, Yellowstone Park introduces the number of wolves to control the number of deer to eliminate the old, weak and disabled.

It is completely normal and reasonable; we often look at wild animals with human eyes and forget the objective differences between us.

And if a species itself is not endangered, then deliberately protects their individuals, and there are not many benefits to the entire species. If we still want to protect these individuals from death for other reasons, it will not belong to the category of the protection of narrow animal protection.

It's.

If it is a means to protect the individual, should protect the species and protect the ecology of the earth?

But in fact, these two propositions are suspicious. Although the species has a long life, it must be disappeared sooner or later. The average life expectancy of each species of the new generation of mammals is only millions of years.

The vast majority has nothing to do with humans.

As for "protecting the earth", the problem is even greater. In fact, no species is "indispensable". Some species are immediately replaced after the disappearance of the species, and some will affect other species. Only a few species will once absolute

Extinction may cause a large -scale collapse of the ecosystem. However, it is not the end of the world after the collapse. After tens of millions of years, everything will come again.

The PT extinction of 100 million years ago killed about 96%of the species in the ocean; but the earth was very tenacious, no matter how miserable it was, it can be returned.

The level.

Similar situations have happened many times. This is a bit like a tumbler, and it will shake as soon as it is pushed, but it does not fall; replacing it with ecological language is "at the geological time scale, the resistance of the overall ecosystem of the earth is stable.

Weak, but the restoration power is strong. "Frankly speaking, as long as the structure of the solar system remains unchanged, I can't imagine that there is no way to make the life of the earth into a rash; even a nuclear bomb cannot guarantee all vertebrates.

So what do we emphasize every day to maintain the ecosystem diagram? It is like we have fallen infinitely during the growth of a person, and we must fall infinitely wrestling in the future. Why should we be obsessed with the wrestling of the moment?

It is very simple. The earth can withstand the collapse of the ecosystem, but human beings cannot afford it. Although the earth recovered as a whole, the number of species of each burial is countless.

The human economic system can't even stand up to tens of centimeters even tens of centimeters, which makes the earth's history of hundreds of meters in the history of the earth's history.

As a result, it seems that we can export a conclusion: We protect the ecology, not for the earth as promoted in the slogan, but to protect ourselves at all. The earth actually doesn't care how we are in trouble, and it has time to recover; but we can't wait for us to wait

. Even if humans are not buried directly in the disaster, people should be gone when the earth is recovered.

And if you do not consider the factors of "protecting ourselves", the motivation of protecting other wild animals seems to be inadequate. Human killing directly or indirectly leads to mighty extinguish. Should this incident blame humans? But if it is

This is a human fault. Who is the wrongdoing of tritermore?

Should we ask hard bone fish to consider the feelings and living rights of tritermia? Dinosaurs can't stand the impact of the little asteroid and destroy it. Should I blame it? Dinosaurs themselves or small asteroids?

In impact, another kind of biological cannot adapt to the appearance of humans. What are the essential differences between the two?

From the perspective of an alien wisdom, it may be like this: If humans kill the mammoth elephant, it is the lack of adaptability like cockroach. If humans are destroyed by themselves because of abuse of creatures, humans are too stupid.

Should be unlucky. If humans continue to protect other species, this is very smart and high. Far -looking; but this is not an inevitable ending, not reasonable, nor moral noble.

However, the survival of species is really difficult to judge with the value of human beings. After all, our understanding of this world is still very shallow. It is difficult to resort to abstract when discussing.

It will say: Animal protection is not only for the survival of the species itself, but also conforms to the natural laws of nature (a certain elusive); it will produce adverse consequences in violation of the laws of nature. This should always be right ...

It sounds beautiful in response to nature, but it can not be implemented in practice -the absolute existence of nature has always existed, and the disaster is absolutely destroyed, and there is usually extinguishing.

Save back, what is this situation? Did this process damage the benefits of other species that should have been prosperous? There is conflict between the interests between animals.

The damage. Whether it is good or not, this is obviously a serious "disruption" of nature.

So if it is not disturbed, the extinction will make them extinct? The question comes again -who should be extinct? If you do not act, you will have other human activities. The impact of these activities will never be completely offset.

The status of the giant panda has not been fighting so far. They have a strong living ability in the wild in the wild, and they do not worry about it. The real problem is that the habitat itself has suffered severe human damage.

It changes because of climate change. If human civilization has never existed, will the giant panda be dangerous because of the natural climate cycle? When does not human beings do?

Species? No one knows.

Therefore, the principles of wild animals in actuality are actually in one sentence: "Maintain the status quo as much as possible" (including "returning to the current status quo"). Because this is the most favorable for humans itself, the environment does not change, and we can steadily develop culture safely to develop culture safely and steadily.

And the economy. Is this interrupted a mysterious and mysterious "natural process"?

If "nature" is defined as everything except humans, then every behavior of human beings is "interrupted". Considering that humans are just a small side branch on the giant tree of evolution, then there is no reason to cut "

Is human "and" nature "the most fundamental human centerism?

However, the biggest dilemma of wild animals in reality is not environmental ethics, but without exception, there is insufficient resources. Limited funds are divided into each species like pepper noodles.

After different equal times, we will give priority to investing resources to those wild animals with small and significant significance.

The key species in ecology are definitely worthy of our efforts. Therefore, two concepts of protecting biology have emerged: umbrella species and flagship species.

The so -called "umbrella" does not necessarily have much ecological status, but the living environment they need can cover many other species; as long as someone pays money to protect it, it can bring a lot of other species.

Of course, buying and selling cannot be released. Establishing an animal protection zone around umbrella species is always an important direction for wild animals.

And the "flagship species" can be relaxed even the requirements of the living environment. Its basic standards are strictly only one: it can sell cute, can attract people, attract attention, and pull donations.

It's better; if there are even national symbols, national characteristics, etc., it is almost perfect. As a result, the giant panda has become the most perfect flagship species so far (WWF is not a reason to take it as a logo): it is strange enough, it is peculiar,

It's rare (as the EN level, it has passed, although there are still many species more rare than it), the cute people come to the world invincible, and it is relatively easy to cultivate, and it can also be competent to the role of umbrella species.

Some people often question why they spend so much money to protect the giant panda. Indeed, the giant panda has more attention, but the propaganda significance of the giant panda itself does it really exist to the overall ecological protection of Sichuan and Yunnan.

It may save each one, but we should always strive to fight for more people and save more species. Objectively, we can only put some species in a priority position and relatively concentrated resources in a meaningful field.

Because worrying that excessive killing makes the entire ecosystem too big, it will have a huge impact on the development of the entire human beings. This is the purpose of protecting animals.

Too many people care about the lives of those animals.

And now, is the protection of the protection of the enchantment division? But soon, Johnson dumped this ridiculous idea out. The power of the power is different from the real world animals.

For example, they are still power.

In the power world, resources are limited, so no matter how precious and powerful they are, but they also need energy consumption, and even because of being too precious, the energy consumed will be larger.

You can get some resources, let alone protection, there is a big possibility to kill the other party.

So there will be no protection things in the power world, so what is the reason now?

In the end, the answer was given above, which is very simple. They are now fighting for a strong enchantment division to join them. Now at this time, if they kill the enchantment division, it is easy to make that senior enchantment division have a bad sense of evil.

At that time, how can we draw the other party? (Unparalleled.)