Complying with the nature sounds very beautiful, but in practice, this radically is unable to be carried out - - the extinction in nature is actually inevitable. The big disasters can bring about the extinction, and the ordinary disasters can also bring about the extinction. That is, if one species which has been doomed to extinct has been saved forcefully, what the situation will be? In this process, whether the benefit of other species which can otherwise be prosperous has been damaged? There are conflicts of interest between the animals, for instance, prosperity of the homeless cats usually brings about the serious damage to wild birds. No matter whether the prosperity is good or, this is obviously a serious harassment to the nature.
Then if the human beings do not harass the rule of nature, will it be right to let the species which may exterminate disappear? Another question comes this way, that is, which species is supposed to exterminate? If the animal protectors do not take any measure, other human behaviors may influence the existence of the wild animals. And the influence of these behaviors will never been completely counterbalanced. There has not been a unanimous agreement on the issue of panda's status. Some experts maintain that the pandas have strong ability to habitat in the natural world and their ability of surviving needs not be worried about. The real problem is that the habitat itself has suffered serious artificial destruction. But, the habitat originally will change according to the climatic changes. Even if the human culture had never existed, will the panda face the danger because of the natural climate cycle? If there is no interference from the human beings, whether the species has come to its end or after its extinction whether another new species will have appeared already? Nobody knows.
Therefore, actual protection of wild animals principle actually has one basic principle: "to maintain the present situation" (including "to restore to the previous situation"). Because it seems that such maintenance seems to be the most advantageous to human beings itself. Only when the environment is invariable can we feel assured to develop the culture and the economy calmly and steadily. But whether such maintenance has broken some undefined natural advancement?
It seems that we human beings have been far away from interpreting the nature profoundly and we can not determine which the best way to maintain the nature and guarantee our own survival is. As we are ignorant in this aspect, we are not sure what possible results there would be if we change the nature, therefore, we hope to achieve the stability of human beings through maintenance of the nature— everything in the nature.
Then if the human beings do not harass the rule of nature, will it be right to let the species which may exterminate disappear? Another question comes this way, that is, which species is supposed to exterminate? If the animal protectors do not take any measure, other human behaviors may influence the existence of the wild animals. And the influence of these behaviors will never been completely counterbalanced. There has not been a unanimous agreement on the issue of panda's status. Some experts maintain that the pandas have strong ability to habitat in the natural world and their ability of surviving needs not be worried about. The real problem is that the habitat itself has suffered serious artificial destruction. But, the habitat originally will change according to the climatic changes. Even if the human culture had never existed, will the panda face the danger because of the natural climate cycle? If there is no interference from the human beings, whether the species has come to its end or after its extinction whether another new species will have appeared already? Nobody knows.
Therefore, actual protection of wild animals principle actually has one basic principle: "to maintain the present situation" (including "to restore to the previous situation"). Because it seems that such maintenance seems to be the most advantageous to human beings itself. Only when the environment is invariable can we feel assured to develop the culture and the economy calmly and steadily. But whether such maintenance has broken some undefined natural advancement?
It seems that we human beings have been far away from interpreting the nature profoundly and we can not determine which the best way to maintain the nature and guarantee our own survival is. As we are ignorant in this aspect, we are not sure what possible results there would be if we change the nature, therefore, we hope to achieve the stability of human beings through maintenance of the nature— everything in the nature.
SHARE
