I believe that all those who are concerned about the environment have a sincere heart for the better survival of our children and grandchildren. We should not doubt that those who develop and utilize natural resources in order to help people in poor areas to get out of poverty and become rich as soon as possible also have a heart to ensure and improve the survival of people in poor areas. It is only that those who strongly advocate conservation are thinking about the long-term survival of mankind as a whole, while those who actively advocate exploitation are trying to solve the current survival problems of people in localized areas. Are we justified in depriving the people of localized areas of their right to survival and development?
Over the years, under the publicity efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the majority of citizens have had a certain degree of environmental protection awareness, which is the credit of the various environmental protection organizations and people, but there is environmental protection awareness is not the same as know how to protect the environment. There are still many of us who are aware of environmental protection but are not willing to consciously comply with environmental protection guidelines out of consideration for their own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment. For example, some of us who no longer need to worry about their own food and clothing, in order to taste the wild game, wearing high-grade fur fashion, show off their wealth, and thus contribute to and stimulate the emergence and development of the wildlife trade market, so that our exploitation of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the real culprits should be the consumers who are well-fed and well-dressed, not those who have no food and clothing and have to take natural resources in order to survive, or those who exploit natural resources in order to let people in poor areas get out of their plight as soon as possible.
Why is it that environmental problems, which did not attract much attention at least before the Industrial Revolution, have become a pressing global issue that increasingly affects mankind's own survival? This is because in the past, mankind's demand for natural resources and the various types of garbage produced had not exceeded nature's carrying capacity, whereas now, mankind's over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large amount of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded nature's carrying capacity. How did this happen? After solving the problem of food and clothing, mankind is in constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment. In order to solve the environmental problem completely, we must curb people's ever-increasing desire for enjoyment. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing should be to promote a moral concept of helping the poor and the rich and leading a simple life among those city dwellers who are well-fed and well-dressed and enjoy modern civilized life. Those living in poor and backward areas are already backward and simple enough, so simple that they can hardly make ends meet. What should be done to solve the problem of their survival and development?
We should oppose that kind of dogmatic, extreme environmental thinking. This kind of thinking seems to be very correct on the surface and extremely compelling, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because they deprive people in poor and backward areas of their right to survival and development.
In the remote poor and backward areas, the local people hunt, cut down trees and burn the land, that is for survival. It is also because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them, so they still follow this backward way of life. In such a survival situation, if they do not hunt and cut down trees, what do you want them to eat? What will they burn? What to use? Local governments and local residents of these areas on the development and utilization of natural resources, some of our environmentalists always love to indiscriminate accusations, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is: you can not cut down the primeval forests, can not hunt and kill wild animals, can not build dams on this river, to preserve the original appearance of this, you can be developed through the development of green tourism to drive the development of the economy ah. But in the current situation of our national quality and environmental awareness is not high, tourism is really green? Development of tourism will not cause ecological damage? Let's take a look at what will happen. 1. In the past, the local people only produce a small amount of domestic garbage, and there is almost no non-degradable garbage; but now due to the influx of large numbers of tourists, bringing a large amount of domestic garbage, especially those who used to be rarely seen in the local plastic food packaging bags; may I ask who is to blame for this? 2. Due to the tourists want to taste the local wild food, the original does not exist in the wildlife trading Operation and born; in the past the local people only a small amount of hunting and digging wildlife, to meet their own food on the line; now in order to meet the needs of tourists, but also in order to increase their own economic income, they began to a large number of hunting and digging wildlife; may I ask who is at fault? 3. The past local people, simple folk, treating people honestly; and now accompanied by a variety of tourists to come to a variety of strange and bizarre culture outside the mountains, and illegal traders brought The local people have benefited a lot from the various fake and shoddy commodities brought by the illegal traders and the many ways to cheat and deceive people, and since then the people are no longer simple and treating people with sincerity; may I ask who is to blame for this?
Yunnan's Lugu Lake scenic area is such a living example, CCTV has reported. However, this report simply blamed the local government departments concerned, a few people have thought about who brought all this? Almost all scenic spots have not been spared from this situation. Here I am not against the development of tourism, I want to say that the development of tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development, do not get it right, the development of tourism than the development of natural resources on the ecological environment of the greater damage. In fact, tourism itself is a kind of utilization of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of whether it can or should be, but how to develop the problem.
The protection of the ecological environment should not be the pursuit of the original, not the slightest change. People who hold this extreme view of environmental protection are concerned about the environment at the same time, ignoring the problem of survival and development, especially in remote poor and backward areas of the survival and development of the problem, they idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, so that environmental protection has lost its vitality. Such people are well-fed and carefree, enjoying all the benefits of modern civilization in the cities, but how many of them have ever been to the remote poor and backward areas, not to mention living and working there? The few who have been there have only traveled to the remote and poor areas in their luxury SUVs for a slapdash tour of the mountains and water. They just want to keep the backyard for city dwellers to have fun and hunt after they have had enough to eat and drink, that's all. According to their viewpoint, I am afraid that mankind has to go back to the primitive society in order to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking will only lead us into a cocoon and make society stagnant.
Once I traveled to Dulongjiang in Yunnan Province to take photos. There well-preserved primitive forests, clear streams and rivers gave me a deep impression, while the poor living conditions of local residents also left me an indelible impression, but what impressed me most was a border guards said to me a paragraph: "Here for you tourists are green mountains and green water, but for those of us who are here every day is the poor mountains." Note that this is only from someone who has only had to serve here for two years, so what about those who have lived here for generations? This statement was like a blow to my head and sobered me up as someone who has also screamed about the environment.
We can't see all exploitation of natural resources as destructive to the environment; that would be too selfish, too dogmatic. What we oppose should be the kind of blind, excessive and destructive development without regard to long-term interests, but for those who can make the local people out of poverty and into civilization, have done ecological assessment, taking into account the ecological recovery after the development of the development of orderly, scientific and reasonable development is not to be blamed and prevented. In fact, as long as the development is scientific and reasonable, the kind of localized, temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disaster, but on the contrary, it will form a new ecological landscape, and even improve the original poor natural environment. Such examples are not unheard of. There are the Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal, which runs from north to south, and the Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and the Lubuge hydroelectric power station in Yunnan.
In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not to simply and brutally blame and stop the exploitation of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the entire nation, especially to improve the environmental awareness of those who live in the city, live in civilization, and do not worry about food and clothing in the modern city. Those who are not environmentally conscious in remote and impoverished areas do minimal damage to the environment and do so to ensure their own survival, and in some cases it can even be argued that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecosystem. On the contrary, we have these cultured modern city people in the food and clothing, in order to enjoy, stimulate the development of some luxury industry such as fur, high-grade wooden furniture, game dining, disposable appliances, the development of these industries is really on the ecological environment to cause a complete and devastating blow, modern civilization of the city people is really the ecological environment directly and indirectly killers.
Imagine, if there are two people, one is not worried about food and clothing of the rich, one is the clothes do not cover the body, food is not enough to eat the poor, a treasured wild animals appear in front of them, the rich in order to enjoy the fur and game and killed, while the poor is in order to protect the cold, to fill the stomach to live and killed, ask the two behaviors should be blamed for it?
What kind of environmentalism is "sensible"
-Review of Charles Krauthammer's Saving Nature, But Only for Man
With the general environmental degradation on a time scale, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with a wide variety of suggestions, proposals, rules, and laws about environmental protection, some people have offered to choose between them. For example, a text in a college English book promotes a viewpoint known as "rational environmentalism," which "rationally" asserts that human beings "protect the environment not for nature but for ourselves," and therefore human beings should protect the environment "not for nature but for ourselves. It is "rational" to claim that human beings "protect the environment not for nature but for ourselves" and that they should therefore "make urgent adjustments only when the environment in which they live is threatened". To gain support, the theory "does not require people to make sacrifices for other living things."
Humans do protect the environment for "ourselves," but the question is how. The article claims that we should "make urgent adjustments when our habitat is threatened," meaning that we should wait until we can't live on our own before we think about protecting the environment. Who made the environment uninhabitable? It is true that the earth's own climate change cycle is a factor, but in the few hundred years since the industrialization revolution, it is mainly human beings themselves who have made the environment uninhabitable for human beings. In the face of the environmental crisis which is worsening day by day, if we do not review our own mistakes, if we do not change our erroneous concept of treating the environment as a "free resource", and if we allow the environment to continue to deteriorate on the pretext that certain environmental problems are not urgent, this is definitely not the attitude of a "sensible" person. This is definitely not the attitude of a "sensible" person.
Facts have already proved that the "pollute first, treat later" approach to environmental pollution control will result in a huge waste of money - because the benefits of creating pollution are often less than the costs of eliminating it. However, since this is only "external diseconomies" and the author does not have to pay for it immediately, he will have no interest in eliminating such pollution. Thus, we see a strange phenomenon: the author willingly pays for the "external diseconomies" of others, while at the same time, he adopts an indifferent attitude and creates costly "external diseconomies" for a large number of other people, even for his descendants. "
Another strange point of the article is that "people are not asked to make sacrifices for other living things". Imagine if people were asked to make "sacrifices" for other animals, what would the "sacrifices" be - probably just some money, or a change in their taste for game. What would be the "sacrifice"? We know that when there is a conflict between organisms, either both of them will be killed or one of them will have to make a "sacrifice". Now, if human beings do not make sacrifices, then we have to let other creatures make sacrifices. How should they sacrifice for human beings? It's simple - give your life.
The author says that he loves the Arctic caribou (I don't know how he got that out of his mouth), but he is willing to destroy the caribou's breeding grounds in Alaska in order to get oil - because that would prevent a war. Not to mention the fact that it has been proven that extracting the oil in Alaska will not avoid war at all; and even if it could, it's really worth considering the sanity of choosing money between racial continuity and money, when it prevents Arctic caribou from reproducing for the sake of cheaper oil for humans.
Similarly, the author loves the spotted owls (hopefully the fewer creatures he loves, the better), but for the sake of the lumberjacks' livelihoods, he is willing to support them in cutting down the forests to exterminate the owls. I don't know how the author can hold such a strange logic - it seems that lumberjacks can't find new jobs without logging, and they lose all their financial resources without logging, so they can't survive without logging, and so for their "survival problem". So for the sake of their "survival problem", they have to "sell out" to the spotted lords.
In the author's eyes, as long as the interests of human beings and other creatures are in conflict, even if the sacrifice of human beings' small interests can be exchanged for the precious lives of other creatures, he will think that human beings are more important than other creatures. This is the so-called "rational" view of environmental protection. In this "rational" view of environmental protection, we cannot see any shadow of "reason", and through the grandiose packaging, we can only see a kind of inexplicable hegemony of "I am the only one", a kind of "I am the only one" for the sake of a tiny bit of economic benefits, and a kind of "I am the only one" for the sake of a tiny bit of economic benefits.
These are the first time I've ever seen the world's most important animal, and I'm sure it's a very good thing that I've seen it.
The author says that environmental protection for things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety is "luxury environmental protection," and that "luxury environmental protection" is good only if it can be achieved at a very small cost. But is there anything related to environmental protection that can be achieved at a small cost? Almost nothing. In other words, the author does not support environmental protection for things that do not pose an immediate threat to human health and safety.
Do we need such "sensible environmentalism"? This kind of "sensible environmentalism" is about waiting for the environment to deteriorate until we can't wait any longer, until we can't stand it any longer, and then working together to alleviate some environmental problem. On the one hand, environmental problems are emerging one after another at an ever-increasing rate; on the other hand, the speed of alleviating environmental problems lags far behind the speed of their emergence. There are some problems that we could have nipped in the bud, but the "sensible environmentalists" wait until the pollution is out of control before taking action. It can be said that this "sanity" has exceeded the ability of ordinary people to understand.
What kind of environmental protection is sensible? That's what the author sees as an "emotional" approach to environmental protection. To be environmentally friendly, we must love nature, rather than see it as our "use" of the object; to be environmentally friendly, we must nip environmental problems in the bud, rather than let the problem expand day by day. Such environmental protection is the real sensible environmental protection.
June 5, 2004 is the 33rd World Environment Day. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has set the theme of this year's World Environment Day as Wanted! Seas and Oceans - Dead or Alive, calling on the international community to pay attention to the protection of the oceans and actively take action to leave clean oceans for the benefit of mankind.
China has more than 18,000 kilometers of continental coastline and more than 6,500 coastal islands, and in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea's 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone system and continental shelf system, China has a jurisdictional sea area of about 3 million square kilometers.
China is a large maritime country with vast jurisdictional waters, rich coastal zones and marine resources, and huge potential for coastal economic development. Rapid economic development and population growth in coastal areas have caused tremendous environmental pressure on coastal zones and oceans, and coastal and marine environmental problems have become prominent. Protecting the marine environment and promoting the coordinated development of coastal socio-economics and coastal zones and the marine environment is an important task for China.
What kind of ecological and environmental protection view and resource development view should we hold? Environmental protection and resource development is a pair of irreconcilable contradictions? I don't think so. Because their goals are the same, are for the survival of mankind. Therefore, the scientific ecological environment protection and resource development is able to achieve the unity of opposites.
I believe that all those who are concerned about the environment have a sincere heart for the better survival of our children and grandchildren. We should not doubt that those who develop and utilize natural resources in order to help people in poor areas to get out of poverty and become rich as soon as possible also have a heart to ensure and improve the survival of people in poor areas. It is only that those who strongly advocate conservation are thinking about the long-term survival of mankind as a whole, while those who actively advocate exploitation are trying to solve the current survival problems of people in localized areas. Are we justified in depriving the people of localized areas of their right to survival and development?
Over the years, under the publicity efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the majority of citizens already have a certain degree of environmental protection awareness, which is the credit of the various environmental protection organizations and people, but there is environmental protection awareness is not the same as know how to protect the environment. There are still many of us who are aware of environmental protection but are not willing to consciously comply with environmental protection guidelines out of consideration for their own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment. For example, some of us who no longer need to worry about their own food and clothing, in order to taste the wild game, wearing high-grade fur fashion, show off their wealth, and thus contribute to and stimulate the emergence and development of the wildlife trade market, so that our exploitation of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the real culprits should be the consumers who are well-fed and well-dressed, not those who have no food and clothing and have to take natural resources in order to survive, or those who exploit natural resources in order to let people in poor areas get out of their plight as soon as possible.
Why is it that environmental problems, which did not attract much attention at least before the Industrial Revolution, have become a pressing global issue that increasingly affects mankind's own survival? This is because in the past, mankind's demand for natural resources and the various types of garbage produced had not exceeded nature's carrying capacity, whereas now, mankind's over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large amount of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded nature's carrying capacity. How did this happen? After solving the problem of food and clothing, mankind is in constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment. In order to solve the environmental problem completely, we must curb people's ever-increasing desire for enjoyment. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing should be to promote a moral concept of helping the poor and the rich and leading a simple life among those city dwellers who are well-fed and well-dressed and enjoy modern civilized life. Those living in poor and backward areas are already backward and simple enough, so simple that they can hardly make ends meet. What should be done to solve the problem of their survival and development?
We should oppose that kind of dogmatic, extreme environmental thinking. This kind of thinking seems to be correct on the surface and extremely compelling, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because they deprive people in poor and backward areas of their right to survival and development.
In the remote poor and backward areas, the local people hunt, cut down trees and burn the land, that is for survival. It is also because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them, so they still follow this backward way of life. In such a survival situation, if they do not hunt and cut down trees, what do you want them to eat? What will they burn? What to use? Local governments and local residents of these areas on the development and utilization of natural resources, some of our environmentalists always love to indiscriminate accusations, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is: you can not cut down the primeval forests, can not hunt and kill wild animals, can not build dams on this river, to preserve the original appearance of this, you can be developed through the development of green tourism to drive the development of the economy ah. But in the current situation of our national quality and environmental awareness is not high, tourism is really green? Development of tourism will not cause ecological damage? Let's take a look at what will happen. 1. In the past, the local people only produce a small amount of domestic garbage, and there is almost no non-degradable garbage; but now due to the influx of large numbers of tourists, bringing a large amount of domestic garbage, especially those who used to be rarely seen in the local plastic food packaging bags; may I ask who is to blame for this? 2. Due to the tourists want to taste the local wild food, the original does not exist in the wildlife trading Operation and born; in the past the local people only a small amount of hunting and digging wildlife, to meet their own food on the line; now in order to meet the needs of tourists, but also in order to increase their own economic income, they began to a large number of hunting and digging wildlife; may I ask who is at fault? 3. The past local people, simple folk, treating people honestly; and now accompanied by a variety of tourists to come to a variety of strange and bizarre culture outside the mountains, and illegal traders brought The local people have benefited a lot from the various fake and shoddy goods brought by the unscrupulous traders and the many ways of cheating and deceiving the people, and the people are no longer simple and treating the people with sincerity; may I ask who is to blame for this?
Yunnan's Lugu Lake scenic area is such a living example, CCTV has reported. However, this report simply blamed the local government departments concerned, a few people have thought about who brought all this? Almost all scenic spots have not been spared from this situation. Here I am not against the development of tourism, I want to say that the development of tourism is not the solution to environmental protection and development of panacea, do not get it right, carry out tourism than the development of natural resources on the ecological environment is more destructive. In fact, tourism itself is also a use of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of whether it can and should be, but how to develop the problem.
The protection of the ecological environment should not be the pursuit of the original, not the slightest change. People who hold this extreme view of environmental protection are concerned about the environment at the same time, ignoring the problem of survival and development, especially in remote poor and backward areas of the survival and development of the problem, they idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, so that environmental protection has lost its vitality. Such people are well-fed and carefree, enjoying all the benefits of modern civilization in the cities, but how many of them have ever been to the remote poor and backward areas, not to mention living and working there? The few who have been there have only traveled to the remote and poor areas in their luxury SUVs for a slapdash tour of the mountains and water. They just want to keep the backyard for city dwellers to have fun and hunt after they have had enough to eat and drink, that's all. According to their viewpoint, I am afraid that mankind has to go back to the primitive society in order to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking will only lead us into a cocoon and make society stagnant.
Once I traveled to Dulong River in Yunnan Province to take photos. There well-preserved primitive forests, clear streams and rivers gave me a very deep impression, while the local residents of the poor living conditions also left me an indelible impression, however, I was most impressed by a border guards said to me a paragraph: "Here for you tourists is the green mountains and green water, but for those of us who are here every day is the poor mountains." Note that this is only from someone who has only had to serve here for two years, so what about those who have lived here for generations? This statement was like a blow to my head and sobered me up as someone who has also screamed about the environment.
We can't see all exploitation of natural resources as destructive to the environment; that would be too selfish and dogmatic. What we oppose should be the kind of blind, excessive and destructive development without regard to long-term interests, but for those who can make the local people out of poverty and into civilization, have done ecological assessment, taking into account the ecological recovery after the development of the development of orderly, scientific and reasonable development is not to be blamed and prevented. In fact, as long as the development is scientific and reasonable, the kind of localized, temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disaster, but on the contrary, it will form a new ecological landscape, and even improve the original poor natural environment. Such examples are not unheard of. There are the Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal, which runs from north to south, and the Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and the Lubuge hydroelectric power station in Yunnan.
In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not to simply and brutally blame and stop the exploitation of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the entire nation, especially to improve the environmental awareness of those who live in the city, live in civilization, and do not worry about food and clothing in the modern city. Those who are not environmentally conscious in remote and poor areas do minimal damage to the environment and do so to ensure their own survival, and in some cases it can even be said that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecosystem. On the contrary, we have these cultured modern city people in the food and clothing, in order to enjoy, stimulate the development of some luxury industry such as fur, high-grade wooden furniture, game dining, disposable appliances, the development of these industries is really on the ecological environment to cause a complete and devastating blow, modern civilization of the city people is really the ecological environment directly and indirectly killers.
Imagine, if there are two people, one is not worried about food and clothing of the rich, one is the clothes do not cover the body, food is not enough to eat the poor, a treasured wild animals appear in front of them, the rich in order to enjoy the fur and game and killed, while the poor is in order to protect the cold, to fill the stomach to live and killed, ask the two behaviors should be blamed for it?
What kind of environmentalism is "sensible"
-A review of Charles Krauthammer's Saving Nature, But Only for Man
With the general environmental degradation on a time scale, environmental protection has become a hot topic. Faced with a wide variety of suggestions, proposals, rules, and laws about environmental protection, some people have offered to choose between them. For example, a text in a college English book promotes a viewpoint known as "rational environmentalism," which "rationally" asserts that human beings "protect the environment not for nature but for ourselves," and therefore human beings should protect the environment "not for nature but for ourselves. It is "rational" to claim that human beings "protect the environment not for nature but for ourselves" and that they should therefore "make urgent adjustments only when the environment in which they live is threatened". To gain support, the theory "does not require people to make sacrifices for other living things."
Humans do protect the environment for "ourselves," but the question is how. The article claims that we should "make urgent adjustments when our habitat is threatened," meaning that we should wait until we can't live on our own before we think about protecting the environment. Who made the environment uninhabitable? It is true that the earth's own climate change cycle is a factor, but in the few hundred years since the industrialization revolution, it is mainly human beings themselves who have made the environment uninhabitable for human beings. In the face of the environmental crisis which is worsening day by day, if we do not review our own mistakes, if we do not change our erroneous concept of treating the environment as a "free resource", and if we allow the environment to continue to deteriorate on the pretext that certain environmental problems are not urgent, this is definitely not the attitude of a "sensible" person. This is definitely not the attitude of a "sensible" person.
Facts have already proved that the "pollute first, treat later" approach to environmental pollution control will result in a huge waste of money - because the benefits of creating pollution are often less than the costs of eliminating it. However, since this is only "external diseconomies" and the author does not have to pay for it immediately, he will have no interest in eliminating such pollution. Thus, we see a strange phenomenon: the author willingly pays for the "external diseconomies" of others, while at the same time, he adopts an indifferent attitude and creates costly "external diseconomies" for a large number of other people, even for his descendants. "
Another strange point of the article is that "people are not asked to make sacrifices for other living things". Imagine if people were asked to make "sacrifices" for other animals, what would the "sacrifices" be - probably just some money, or a change in their taste for game. What would be the "sacrifice"? We know that when there is a conflict between organisms, either both of them will suffer or one of them will have to make a "sacrifice". Now, if human beings do not make sacrifices, then we have to let other creatures make sacrifices. How should they sacrifice for human beings? It's simple - give your life.
The author says that he loves the Arctic caribou (I don't know how he got that out of his mouth), but that he would destroy the caribou's breeding grounds in Alaska in order to get oil - because it would prevent a war. Not to mention the fact that it has been proven that extracting the oil in Alaska will not avoid war at all; and even if it could, it's really worth considering the sanity of choosing money between racial continuity and money, when it prevents Arctic caribou from reproducing for the sake of cheaper oil for humans.
Similarly, the author loves the spotted owls (hopefully the fewer creatures he loves, the better), but for the sake of the lumberjacks' livelihoods, he is willing to support them in cutting down the forests to exterminate the owls. I don't know how the author can hold such a strange logic - it seems that lumberjacks can't find new jobs without logging, and they lose all their financial resources without logging, so they can't survive without logging, and so for their "survival problem". So for the sake of their "survival problem", they have to "sell out" to the spotted lords.
In the author's eyes, as long as the interests of human beings and other creatures are in conflict, even if the sacrifice of human beings' small interests can be exchanged for the precious lives of other creatures, he will think that human beings are more important than other creatures. This is the so-called "rational" view of environmental protection. In this "rational" view of environmental protection, we cannot see any shadow of "reason", and through the grandiose packaging, we can only see a kind of inexplicable hegemony of "I am the only one", a kind of "I am the only one" for the sake of a tiny bit of economic benefits, and a kind of "I am the only one" for the sake of a tiny bit of economic benefits.
These are the first time I've ever seen the world's most important animal, and I'm sure it's a very good thing that I've seen it.
The author says that environmental protection for things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety is "luxury environmental protection," and that "luxury environmental protection" is good only if it can be achieved at a very small cost. But is there anything related to environmental protection that can be achieved at a small cost? Almost nothing. In other words, the author does not support environmental protection for things that do not immediately pose a threat to human health and safety.
Do we need such "sensible environmentalism"? This kind of "sensible environmentalism" is about waiting for the environment to deteriorate until we can't wait any longer, until we can't stand it any longer, and then working together to alleviate some environmental problem. On the one hand, environmental problems are emerging one after another at an ever-increasing rate; on the other hand, the speed of alleviating environmental problems lags far behind the speed of their emergence. There are some problems that we could have nipped in the bud, but the "sensible environmentalists" wait until the pollution is out of control before taking action. It can be said that this "sanity" has exceeded the ability of ordinary people to understand.
What kind of environmental protection is sensible? That's what the author sees as an "emotional" approach to environmental protection. To be environmentally friendly, we must love nature, rather than see it as our "use" of the object; to be environmentally friendly, we must nip environmental problems in the bud, rather than let the problem expand day by day. Such environmental protection, is really sensible environmental protection.