This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. Regardless of human beings or others, why should I protect wild animals just for myself?
In the eyes of ordinary people, animal health care is often linked to "love", "kindness" and "sympathy". People who do not understand animal health care often say something ugly, called the so-called "Holy Mother", but they can't escape "sympathy overflowing,
Too Much Love" kind of circles.
However, because the weak and the strong in the wilderness are full of emotions, seeing the prey die tragically under the claws of the predator without the slightest pity, without pity for the weak, is this sympathy?
In the laboratory, the knife and the knife are cut through the skin of the pigeon and the rabbit, and the flesh is cut without the slightest tremor. The blood on the hands carries the blood debt of several lives.
I once wrote, "I have no good heart, and protecting animals is never out of sympathy." This is a bit inaccurate, because at the very beginning there might have been a period of participating in animal protection just because the poor animals that were killed
wanted to save their lives. But those condescending sympathies have long been polished by the cruelty of Bao and shattered by its nobility.
Animal protection is not out of love, because animal protection does not protect the lives of animals; and killing animals does not mean that it is disrespectful to life. Birds, beasts, fish, shrimps, insects and snakes are interlinked and everything depends
on each other. Life and death are up to the sky. All things try their best to find their own way of survival. It is a blessing to survive. Although death is unwilling, it is also the result of struggle. , the body of the deceased is for those who maintain
health, and it nourishes the next batch of creatures struggling to survive, and it is not necessary to pity. Death isn't just the end of life, it's part of life - if it's dead right.
It has nothing to do with life, this is the cruelty of animal protection. Beyond death, this is the nobility of animal protection.
When Craig Childs wrote about the Great Blue Heron in his book "The Moment of the Animals,"
(2k mt) he wrote a quote that I like:
"You can't look at this bird and come to the conclusion of who is superior to the other. The raven's encyclopedic vocabulary is no more enviable than the red-spotted toad's ability to drink water. Humans' penchant for hacking the world is no greater than
that of the pronghorn. Amazing eyes are even more valuable."
At the end of the day, what makes each species special is the magic of evolution. They appear for survival, and they become more sophisticated because of their fit with the environment. How would you compare the electric ray's discharger to the moth's siphonic
mouthparts? Likewise, the brain of Homo sapiens is just an evolutionary coincidence, and even though its intelligence has created technology that affects nature, it is still essentially the same as the pelican's throat pouch.
Respect for life, that's what it's all about - we're no different, we're all part of nature's struggle to survive. How to have mercy? I can only respect their right to survive.
However, although the intelligence of Homo sapiens is nothing but a creation of nature, it is clear that its influence now extends beyond the scope of the rest of the species. "Man and nature", is the word reasonable? Once I naively questioned its juxtaposition,
and there was the idea that "human beings should belong to nature rather than be juxtaposed with nature". However, after seeing too many injuries, now I can only firmly believe that although human beings cannot transcend the limitations of nature, they have
long been unable to juxtapose with other creatures in nature. Do not disturb is the last tenderness that human beings can leave to their former companions, and it is also the tenderness left to themselves.