Protecting wildlife posters

Protecting wildlife posters

Protecting wildlife posters, it is impossible for creatures on the earth to live alone. Under certain environmental conditions, they are interrelated and live together, so it is very important to protect wildlife. The following is related to the protection of wildlife posters! Protecting wildlife posters 1

1. Protecting wildlife posters

2. Protecting wildlife related content

Individual significance

In all fields of wildlife protection, the most intuitive, touching and easily aroused * * * is undoubtedly Seeing a recovered kestrel return to the blue sky is enough to bring tears to everyone present.

However, it is easy to be overlooked by volunteers that the value of rescuing individual wild animals is often not in the individual itself, but more in the whole population behind the individual. This is different from helping the weak individuals in human society.

There are many differences between animals and people. According to Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, the biggest difference may be that animals lack culture. Here, the definition of culture is "a behavior pattern that has nothing to do with heredity, but can be imitated and passed down".

In human society, cultural factors are gradually overwhelming genetic and physiological factors. Our ability to transform ourselves is getting stronger and stronger, and the importance of innate genetic quality is getting smaller and smaller. When we say "everyone is unique", this uniqueness mostly comes from the day after tomorrow. And a person's contribution to society is almost entirely from the cultural field: in his life, he will create countless new ideas and new things, affecting everyone around him; And when he dies, even if his blood is passed on by future generations, countless thoughts that have not been expressed will disappear forever In contrast, his genetic contribution to mankind is insignificant.

However, most behaviors of wild animals in the environment can be traced back to their genes. Even if there is cultural inheritance between individuals, the influence is usually minimal [1]. If two groups of wolves react differently to the same scene, it is because their genetic characteristics are different, not because they have experienced different wolf pack histories and different wolf pack cultures. Even if an animal learns complex behaviors from humans because of getting along with people, it is almost impossible to teach other animals the "human skills" it has learned and change the original culture when it returns to the wild. A human culture that does not adapt to its environment can lead to the destruction of a civilization, but the culture in the animal kingdom seems to have never had such a great effect.

therefore, the value of wild animals is more borne in its genes, and the continuation of the population itself is more critical. Individual's death is inevitable, but genes can last forever through the population gene pool to maintain the existence of species. Our protection of individual wild animals is more a means to protect populations than an end in itself. That's why Yellowstone National Park introduced wolves to control the number of deer and eliminate the old, the weak and the sick. Such behavior is unimaginable in human beings, but it is completely normal and reasonable in nature; 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 protecting their individuals will not do much good to the whole species. If we still want to protect these individuals from death for other reasons, it does not belong to the narrow sense of animal protection.

The meaning of species

If protecting individuals is the means, should protecting species and protecting the earth's ecology be the ultimate goal?

but in fact, these two propositions are very suspicious. Although species have a long life span, they will disappear sooner or later, and the average life span of each species of new generation mammals is only a few million years. At least 99.9% of species in the history of the earth have been extinct, and most of them have nothing to do with human beings.

as for "protecting the earth", the problem is even bigger. Actually, no species is "indispensable". Some species will be replaced immediately after their disappearance, while others will spread to other species. Only a few species may cause a large-scale collapse of the ecosystem once they are extinct. However, the collapse of the disk is not the end of the world. After tens of millions of years, everything will start all over again. The earth is very fragile, and it is easy to be beaten black and blue. For example, the P/T extinction event that occurred about 25 million years ago killed about 96% of the species in the ocean. But the earth is tenacious, no matter how miserable it is, it can recover. After 1 million years after P/T, the species diversity exceeds the level before extinction.

this has happened many times. It's a bit like a tumbler, which shakes when pushed, but it won't fall; In ecological terms, it is "on the geological time scale, the stability of the overall ecosystem of the earth is very weak, but the resilience stability is very strong." Frankly speaking, as long as the structure of the solar system remains unchanged, I can't imagine any way to make life on earth irreversible; Even a nuclear bomb cannot guarantee the destruction of all invertebrates.

so what do we emphasize to maintain the ecosystem map every day? It's like a person who has had an infinite number of falls while growing up, and will have an infinite number of falls in the future. Why should he persist in stopping the current one?

it's simple. the earth can withstand the collapse of the ecosystem, but human beings can't. Although the earth as a whole has been restored every time, the number of species buried with it is countless. Don't say that the ecosystem has collapsed, and the fragile human economic system can't even cope with the sea level rising by tens of centimeters, which makes the sea level change of hundreds of meters in the history of the earth.

from this, it seems that we can draw a conclusion: we protect the ecology, not for the sake of the earth as advertised in the slogan, but for the sake of protecting ourselves. In fact, the earth doesn't care how noisy we are. It has plenty of time to recover. But we can't wait. Even if human beings are not directly buried in the disaster, they will be gone when the earth is restored.

If we don't consider the factor of "protecting ourselves", the motivation to protect other wild animals seems to be insufficient. The killing of human beings directly or indirectly led to the extinction of mammoths. Should human beings be blamed for this [2]? But if this is human's fault, whose fault is the extinction of trilobites? Should we ask bony fish to consider the feelings and survival rights of trilobites [3] Who is to blame for the extinction of dinosaurs because they couldn't stand the impact of asteroids? Dinosaurs themselves or asteroids? One creature can't adapt to asteroid impact, and another creature can't adapt to human appearance. What is the essential difference between the two?

In the view of an alien intelligence, it may be like this: if humans kill all mammoths, it is because mammoths lack the adaptability like cockroaches. If human beings destroy themselves by killing creatures indiscriminately, it is that human beings are too stupid and deserve bad luck. If human beings can continue by protecting other species, it is very smart and far-sighted; But this is not an inevitable outcome, it is not taken for granted, and it is not moral.

But I am a human being, so I very, very, very much hope that human beings will take the last road.

The significance of conservation

However, it is really difficult to judge whether a species survives or not based on the value of human beings. After all, our understanding of the world is still very shallow. When it is difficult to discuss in detail, we resort to abstraction. With this common thinking habit, many times we will say: animal protection is not only for the survival of the species itself, but also to conform to (an elusive) natural law; Violating the laws of nature will have adverse consequences, which should be true ...

This article does not discuss the naturalistic fallacy, but only talks about equating "protection" with "conforming to nature".

conforming to nature sounds beautiful, but it can't be carried out in practice at all-the extinction of nature has always existed, and there are extinction in catastrophes and extinction in peacetime. So, what if a species that was supposed to be extinct was forcibly saved back? Does this process harm the interests of other species that should have flourished? There are conflicts of interest between animals. For example, the prosperity of stray cats usually brings serious harm to wild birds. Whether it is good or not, this is obviously a serious "disturbance" to nature.

so don't disturb them, let them be extinct, ok? The question comes again-who should be extinct? If you don't act, there will be other human activities; And that effect of these activities can neve be completely offset. The status of giant pandas has not been disputed so far. Their ability to live in wild natural habitats is extremely strong, and no one needs to worry about it at all. The real problem is that the habitat itself has suffered serious man-made damage. However, the habitat will change because of climate change. If human civilization has never existed, will the giant panda be in danger because of the natural climate cycle? Without humans, when will they run out of gas? Will new species be produced before extinction? Nobody knows.

Therefore, the actual principle of wildlife protection is actually one sentence: "try to maintain the status quo" (including "returning to the previous status quo"). Because it is in the best interests of human beings, and the environment remains unchanged, we can develop culture and economy steadily. Does this interrupt a mysterious "natural process"?

If "nature" is defined as everything except human beings, then every human behavior is "interruption". Considering that human beings are just a small branch on the giant tree of evolution, is it the most fundamental anthropocentrism to separate "human" and "nature" for no reason?

Protection in practice

But the biggest dilemma of wildlife protection in reality is not environmental ethics, but the lack of resources without exception. If the limited funds are distributed equally to each species like pepper noodles, it will probably accomplish nothing; The cruel reality forces wild animals to be divided into different grades, and we will give priority to those wild animals with low cost and great significance.

The ecological keystone species is definitely more worthy of our efforts. Therefore, there are two exclusive concepts in conservation biology: umbrella species and flagship species.

The so-called "umbrella protection species" may not have much ecological status in themselves, but the living environment they need can cover many other species; As long as someone pays to protect it, it can jointly protect many other species. Of course, such a good deal can't be let go. It is always an important direction of wildlife protection to establish animal reserves around umbrella species.

even the requirement of living environment can be relaxed for the "flagship species". Strictly speaking, there is only one basic standard: it can sell cute, attract people's attention and attract donations. It would be better if the standards of umbrella protection were met at the same time; If there are national symbols, national characteristics and so on, it will be almost perfect. Therefore, the giant panda has become the most perfect flagship species so far (WWF takes it as a logo for no reason [4]): it is strange enough and rare (it is qualified as an EN level, although many species are even rarer than it [5]), and it is invincible in the world, and it is relatively easy to keep in captivity [6], and it is also qualified for the role of umbrella protection species.

People often question why they spend so much money to protect giant pandas. Indeed, the giant panda has received relatively more attention, but the propaganda significance of the giant panda itself and the significance of the overall ecological protection in Sichuan and Yunnan do exist. It is impossible to save everyone, but we should always strive to win more people and save more species. This is the objective situation. We can only give priority to certain species and concentrate resources in meaningful areas.

therefore, the discussion on the meaning of the first three parts is not empty talk, and we have to make a choice on the arrangement of resources accordingly. Some conservationists are so obsessed with the individual animals, with the illusory "interests of all animals", or with a "natural law" that they make great efforts to wave flags for some creatures that are not actually endangered. I can't say that they must be wrong, but I can only remind them that these resources could have been used in more valuable fields. Protecting wildlife posters 2

1. Protecting wildlife posters

2. Protecting wildlife related content

Living things on earth can't live alone. Under certain environmental conditions, they are interrelated and live together. Biologists point out that in the natural state, the number of species extinct is basically balanced with the number of new species appearing. With the increase of population and economic development, this balance has been destroyed, so it is very necessary to protect wild animals.

From 16 to 1996, 164 species of birds disappeared in the world; From 1871 to 197, 43 species of mammals were extinct. There have been 2.5 billion species of animals and plants since life began on the earth, and nearly half of them have disappeared in the last three centuries. The destruction of species balance will worsen the living environment of mankind, and mankind itself will suffer great disasters.

Wild animals are the products of nature, which is composed of many complex ecosystems. When a plant disappears, the insects that feed on it will disappear.

If an insect is gone, birds that prey on it will starve to death; The death of birds will have an impact on other animals. This is also caused by the food chain. Therefore, large-scale wildlife destruction will cause a series of chain reactions and have serious consequences.