The public's concern about the premature death of a baby black swan is actually an opportunity to review and improve the concept of animal protection.
The full text is 1658 words, and it takes about 3 minutes to read
Written by Song Jinbo (columnist) Edited by Xu Qiuying Proofread by Jia Ning.
On March 31, 2022, in the western scenic area of the Old Summer Palace, two newborn black swan babies followed their parents to swim in the lake and forage for food. Photo by Beijing News reporter Pu Feng.
Recently, a black swan goose in the Old Summer Palace unfortunately died. On the evening of December 18, the Management Office of the Old Summer Palace issued a statement on the recent unfortunate death of black swan cubs.
This is not the first time that the Black Swan of the Old Summer Palace has received widespread attention. In May this year, the news of the death of Fang Fang, the black swan of the Old Summer Palace, once rushed to the hot search of social **. Unlike Fang Fang's "death from a lung infection", the public has more different voices in addition to grief for the cause of death of the baby swan "may have died due to severe cold weather".
The park said that a series of work has been carried out on the wintering of waterfowl in the park, and the swan cubs that may die due to severe cold weather are deplored, but the survival of the fittest is the law of nature, and excessive love and intervention of human beings are not conducive to the reproduction of the swan population, and call on the majority of friends to be observers of nature, not to be interventionists.
In the wildlife conservation community, there is an unwritten consensus – do not intervene unless necessary. So, what is the need for intervention?It's a worthwhile question.
Let's start with a few examples. Giant pandas in the wild are injured or in other survival difficulties, should humans intervene?"Magpie nest dove occupies", when the dove pushes the magpie eggs out of the nest, does it intervene?The sled dog that happened in Harbin in the previous paragraph was "tired to **" do not intervene?
In the case of giant pandas, it is obvious that conservation organizations will take appropriate rescue measures as soon as possible. Because the giant panda is a key protected wild animal, rescue behavior is necessary to save this precious and endangered wild animal, and is beneficial to the recovery of the giant panda population and the protection of the ecosystem.
As for the "magpie's nest dove", if you intervene, probably everyone will say "this is your bird business". This is based on the natural perception of "natural selection".
In the case of sled dogs, people will be sympathetic to their plight, dog lovers will also report it, and the relevant authorities will take corresponding measures. However, this starting point is not for the protection of wild animals, but for the topic of "animal welfare".
Obviously, the above situations need to be "treated differently". The distinction is not a division of life into "three, six, nine, etc.", but rather reflects the scientific and humanistic definition of "non-essential" in "non-essential non-intervention".
First of all, the act of individual rescue that is of great significance to the preservation and continuation of the germplasm gene bank in nature (commonly understood as the protection of rare wild animals and plants) can be regarded as necessarySecond, the deterrence and reverse remedial actions of human activities that are destructive to wildlife populations or their habitats can be considered necessary;Third, on the premise of ensuring the collective rights and interests of human beings, it can be regarded as necessary to give animals "some human-like rights" as much as possible.
The first two are the basic principles established by modern wildlife conservation theory, while the latter is an important indicator of the progress of human civilization.
Obviously, the Old Summer Palace did not take too many interventions in the black swan family, causing the baby swan to freeze to death, which does not violate the first "necessary" principle. At the same time, the maintenance of the living environment of some black swans taken by the zoo in the early stage, the dissuasion of some "goose lovers" from feeding and the distance isolation measures are also applicable to the second "necessary" principle.
If there is anything debatable, there is only a third. If the black swan in the Old Summer Palace is regarded as an ornamental animal and star mascot in the park, saving the "baby swan" is of course warm, but there is also the question of whether it will disturb the black swan family or even the population;If it is only regarded as an ordinary species that inhabits the park, then the behavior of the park and the subsequent explanation of the situation are unquestionable.
The death of a baby black swan can be heart-wrenching, but the whole story, and even the public controversy over the event, is comforting.
From the "Four Evils" campaign to wildlife protection, from the use of economic animal and plant resources to sustainable development, from animal rescue to "non-essential non-intervention", every change and enrichment of public perception is social progress.
The "incomprehension" and "incomprehension" of the "non-intervention" of the black swan baby's premature death are not the tearing and opposition of social concepts, but an opportunity for the public's cognition of wildlife protection and the concept of animal protection to be examined and improved.
For example, in the uninhabited area of Qiangtang in northern Tibet, wolves hunting Tibetan antelopes is a common scene. When the gazelle escapes, we say "great" because the lamb may become a sturdy head sheep;When the wolves are successful, we say "great" because the wolves can enjoy a delicious meal.
And this is not indifference, but precisely because there must be some kind of detachment, the original goodness of human beings, so that some unexpected evil will not be caused.