Why should the finless porpoise be protected when it is not delicious? What did the official Yan Lei explain?

I was speechless at that time, and then I told him it was not delicious. As a result, he came to me and made me even more devastated. He said it wasn't delicious. Why should I protect it? "

At first glance, people can't help but be furious. This is not the image of a leading cadre. It is simply a gluttony that knows nothing but to eat. Don't you know that the finless porpoise is an endangered animal under state protection? Even if I don't know, I should have seen the environmental protection public service advertisement "Keep the smile of the finless porpoise" broadcast every day on TV. Many netizens come to the conclusion that this person belongs to the low-level life of animal survival, and such a person can also be an official, which is really unfortunate for the country and sad for the people.

The official "shocking" words actually represent "pragmatism". For example, studying is to go to college, and going to college is to find a good job. As for the value of reading itself, there is no need to consider it. According to the index of pragmatism, we will not be shocked by some "performance projects" that are often shocking everywhere. Because of pragmatism, the "achievement project" is for officials' achievements, and it is a "ladder" to climb up. Just like people have to rely on food and water to live, officials' promotion depends on their achievements, which is "natural".

Ordinary people take pragmatic philosophy as their way of life, which has little negative effect. Immediate interests are always the most important, and at most they lack a little spiritual pursuit. However, officials pay too much attention to practical interests, which directly affects the ruling concept and means. Some "pragmatic" practices have caused endless disasters, such as reclamation of lakes leading to the disappearance of wetlands, deforestation leading to climate deterioration, and then we have to spend more money and energy on environmental governance.

Therefore, the question "Why should we protect finless porpoises when they are not delicious?" can't be simply regarded as Lei language, but a question that needs serious consideration and answer. It is true that we have laws to protect finless porpoises, but laws cannot solve the confusion of inner beliefs.

Einstein once predicted: "If bees disappear from the earth, human beings can live for up to four years." This sentence is vivid and deeply rooted in people's hearts because it is supported by data: according to statistics, about 80% of flowering plants in the world are pollinated by insects, 85% of which are pollinated by bees, and 90% of fruit trees are pollinated by bees. In other words, if there were no pollination by bees, about 40 thousand plants would be difficult to reproduce and endangered. Protecting bees is protecting human beings.

Although this kind of voice of local officials is not pleasant to hear, it also reflects a fact: when did the big and unreasonable protection slogan shout into people's hearts? When can the death of the finless porpoise be prevented by the emotional protection of "a piece of love"? Instead of empty appeals, it is better to demonstrate our relationship with finless porpoises in a down-to-earth manner and speak with systems and rules.