"Enchantment? Can you be sure? ”

Hearing the blonde man say that it might be the enchantment master who did it, Johnson, who had always been calm, couldn't help but change his face slightly and asked.

"I'm pretty sure, it's just blocking the other party's mind, but it doesn't affect a person's normal health, this is not a common sealing technique used by enchantment masters, what else can it be?" To say that he is suspected of what he is best at, even if the relationship between the two is good, the blonde man can't help but feel a little uncomfortable.

And Johnson ignored the other party's tone, and when he heard the other party say this, his face couldn't help but be a little heavy. He was also in a hurry just now, so he asked out loud. You must know that he and the other party are known as the combination of two foxes, and like foxes, they both have a very strong sense of induction, whether it is strength, energy fluctuations, or even unknown dangers, as long as it happens, they have a great possibility to sense.

And now that the other party is sure, then the matter must be eight. Nine is not far from ten.

It's just that now that there is an enchantment master in the middle of the book, then things may be even more troublesome, and his mood is naturally a little heavy. In addition to the strange ability of the enchantment master, in fact, because the church asked him to get rid of the enchantment master as little as possible, Johnson felt that he had heard it wrong when he heard this explanation at first. After all, in the church, once you become an enemy, no matter what the identity of the other party is, you have to kill them all, how can you take action against the enchantment master now?

On second thought, he may have thought that it was the same purpose as protecting wild animals in reality.

What are the reasons to protect wildlife? There are many differences between animals and humans, and according to evolutionary biologist Dawkins and others, the biggest difference may lie in the lack of culture in animals. Over here. Culture is defined as "patterns of behavior that are not genetically related, but can be imitated and passed on".

In human society, cultural factors are gradually overpowering genetic and physiological factors. We are becoming more and more capable of transforming ourselves. Innate genetic predispositions are also becoming less and less important. When we say "everyone is unique", most of this uniqueness comes from nurture. And almost all of a person's contribution to society comes from the field of culture: he will create countless new ideas and new things in his lifetime. Influence everyone around you; And when he dies, even if his bloodline has descendants to pass on, those countless thoughts that have not been expressed will disappear forever. His genetic contribution to humanity is insignificant in comparison.

However, the vast majority of individual wildlife behaviors in the environment can be traced back to their genes; Cultural inheritance between individuals, if it exists, usually has little impact. If two packs of wolves react differently to the same scene, it is because they have different genetic traits, not because they have different wolf histories and cultures. Even if there are animals that learn complex behaviors from humans because they get along with people. When it returns to the wild, it is almost impossible to teach the "human skills" it has learned to other animals and change its culture. A human culture that is not adapted to its environment can lead to the destruction of a civilization, but cultures in the animal kingdom never seem to have such a dramatic effect.

Therefore, the value of wild animals is more in its genes, and the continuation of the population itself is more crucial. The death of an individual is inevitable, but genes can survive forever through the gene pool of the population and maintain the existence of the species. Our protection of individual wild animals is more of a means to protect the population, not an end in itself. That's why Yellowstone introduced wolves to control the deer population and eliminate the old, weak, sick and disabled. Such behavior is unimaginable in human beings, but it is completely normal and reasonable in nature; We often look at wildlife through human eyes. Forget about the objective differences between us.

And if a species is not endangered in its own right, then deliberately protecting them will not do much good to the species as a whole. If, for other reasons, we still want to protect these individuals from death, we do not fall within the narrow category of animal protection.

If the protection of the individual is the means. So should the protection of species and the protection of the earth's ecology be the ultimate goal?

But in reality both propositions are dubious. Although species live long, they will die sooner or later, and the average lifespan of each species of Cenozoic mammals is only a few million years. At least 99.9% of all species in Earth's history have become extinct. Most of them have nothing to do with humans.

As for "protecting the planet", the problem is even greater. In fact. No species is "indispensable". Some species disappear and their status is immediately replaced, while others spread to others. The extinction of only a few species could trigger widespread ecosystem collapse. However, the collapse is not the end of the world, and after tens of millions of years, everything will start all over again. The earth is very fragile and can easily be beaten and bruised, such as the P/T extinction event that occurred about 250 million years ago, which killed about 96% of the species in the ocean; But the earth is resilient and can recover no matter how miserable it is, and 10 million years after P/T, the diversity of species has exceeded the level before extinction.

Something like this has happened many times. It's a bit like a tumbler, it shakes when you push it, but it doesn't fall down no matter how you shake it; In ecological terms, it means that "on geological time scales, the resilience of the Earth's overall ecosystem is weak, but the resilience is strong." "Frankly, as long as the structure of the solar system remains the same, I can't imagine any way to wipe out life on Earth; Even a nuclear bomb cannot guarantee the destruction of all invertebrates.

So what is it that we emphasize every day to maintain the ecosystem map? It's like a person who has fallen infinitely many times during his growth and will fall infinitely many times in the future, why should he be obsessed with stopping this current fall?

Quite simply, the earth can afford the collapse of its ecosystems, but humans can't. While the Earth as a whole has been restored each time, the number of species buried at each time is innumerable. Not to mention the collapse of ecosystems, the fragile human economic system cannot withstand even a few tens of centimeters of sea level rise, which makes the sea level change of hundreds of meters in the history of the earth unbearable.

From this, it seems possible to draw a conclusion: we protect the ecology. Not for the sake of the planet, as the slogan suggests, but for the protection of ourselves. The Earth doesn't really care what we do. What it has is time to recover; But we can't wait. Even if humans are not buried directly in the cataclysm, when the earth is restored, there should be no humans.

And if we don't take into account the factor of "protecting ourselves". Motivations to protect other wildlife also seem to be inadequate. Is humanity to blame for the killing of the mammoth, either directly or indirectly? But if it's human's fault, whose fault is it for the trilobites to be wiped out?

Shouldn't we ask the bony fish to consider the trilobite's feelings and right to live? The dinosaurs couldn't withstand the impact of the asteroid and went extinct, so who is to blame? Dinosaurs themselves or asteroids? What is the essential difference between one organism that cannot adapt to an asteroid impact and another that cannot adapt to the emergence of humans?

In the eyes of an extraterrestrial intelligence, it may be something like this: if humans kill all mammoths, it is that mammoths lack the resilience of cockroaches. If humans destroy themselves because of the indiscriminate killing of living things, they are too stupid and deserve to be unlucky. If humanity is able to sustain itself by protecting other species. It's very smart and very high. Visionary; But this is not an inevitable outcome, it is not a matter of course, and it is not morally noble.

However, it is indeed too difficult to judge whether species survive or not, based on the value of human beings, after all, our understanding of the world is still very shallow. With this common habit of thinking, we often say that animal conservation is not only for the survival of the species itself, but also for the (elusive) laws of nature; Violating the laws of nature can have undesirable consequences. This must be right, right......

Going with nature sounds wonderful, but in practice it simply cannot be implemented - the extinction of nature is always there, and the catastrophe has extinction. There is also extinction in normal times. So, what if a species that was meant to be extinct is forcibly rescued? Is this hurting the interests of other species that are supposed to thrive? There is a conflict of interest between animals. For example, the abundance of stray cats usually causes serious harm to wild birds. Whether this is done well or not, this is obviously a serious "disturbance" of the natural world.

Then do not disturb. Should they be extinct, will it be okay to let them go extinct? The question arises again - who should be exterminated? If you don't act, there will be other human activities; The impact of these activities can never be fully undone. The status of the giant panda has not yet been contested. They are extremely capable of living in their natural habitat in the wild, and there is no need to worry at all, but the real problem is that the habitat itself has suffered severe man-made damage. However, habitats are inherently subject to climate change, and if human civilization had never existed, would the giant panda be in danger due to natural climate cycles? If there were no humans, when would they run out of energy? Will new species be created before extinction? Nobody knows.

Therefore, the actual principle of wildlife conservation is actually one sentence: "maintain the status quo as much as possible" (including "restore to the previous status quo"). Because this is the best for human beings themselves, and the environment remains the same, so that we can develop culture and economy in peace and stability. Does this interrupt some mysterious "natural process"?

If "nature" is defined as everything but humans, then every human action is an "interruption". Considering that human beings are just a small side branch of the giant tree of evolution, is it the most fundamental anthropocentrism to separate "human" and "nature" for no reason?

But the biggest dilemma of wildlife conservation in reality is not environmental ethics, but the lack of resources. The limited amount of money that would have been divided equally among each species like pepper flour would probably have achieved nothing; The harsh reality has forced wildlife to be divided into different levels, and we will prioritize resources for those that cost less and have more meaning.

Ecological key species are certainly more worthy of our efforts, so there are two concepts that are specific to conservation biology: umbrella species and flagship species.

The so-called "umbrella species" may not have much ecological status in themselves, but they need a living environment that can cover many other species; As long as someone pays for it, it can protect many other species. Of course, such a good deal cannot be let go. The establishment of animal sanctuaries around umbrella protection has always been an important direction for wildlife conservation.

The "flagship species" can even relax the requirements of the living environment, and its basic standards are strictly only one: it can sell cute, can attract people's love, can attract attention, and can attract donations. It would be even better if the criteria for umbrella protection were met at the same time; If there are national symbols, national characteristics, etc., it is almost perfect. As a result, the giant panda is by far the most perfect flagship species (and for good reason, WWF uses it as its logo): it's peculiar enough, it's rare (it's EN-class, it's qualified, although there are many species that are rarer), it's invincible, it's relatively easy to keep in captivity, and it's also capable of protecting the species.

It is often questioned why so much money is spent on protecting giant pandas. It is true that the giant panda has received more attention, but the significance of the giant panda itself in publicity and the overall ecological protection of the Sichuan-Yunnan region also does exist. It is impossible to save every single one, but we should always strive to win more people and save more species. Objectively, we can only prioritize certain species and relatively concentrate resources in areas of meaning.

Because of the fear that excessive killing will cause too many problems in the entire ecosystem, it will have a huge impact on the development of the entire human race, which is the real purpose of protecting animals, otherwise, with the inferior nature of human beings, it is estimated that not too many people really care about the life and death of those animals.

And now, isn't that the same for the protection of the Enchantment? But soon, Johnson threw out the ridiculous idea, the Paranormal is different from the animals in the real world, although they are also different abilities, but in general, they are still Adepts.

In the ability world, resources are limited, so no matter how precious and powerful an ability is, they also need to consume energy, and even because the ability is too precious, the energy consumed will be even larger, in order to be able to obtain more resources for themselves, let alone protection, it is very possible to kill the other party.

So there is no such thing as protection in the Abilities Realm, so why now?

In the end, the answer was given above, it was very simple, they were now striving for a powerful enchantment master to join them, and at this time, if they wantonly killed the enchantment master, it would be easy for that high-level enchantment master to have a bad feeling, and at that time, how could they win over the other party? (To be continued......)