Post by wsay123000 on Oct 7, 2018 12:42:02 GMT
Don't Deprive the Creator's Right
Author :Chang Kai-Chi
Recently, animal conservationist paid more and more attention about the perspective of the entire earth species evolution-- it is undeniable that human beings are one of the many species and are also under evolutionary mechanism control. However, begin the interference with the evolution of species via tools usage, bio-knowledge progressing, technology highly developing even starting the genetic decoding.
Perhaps the driving force comes from the curiosity about the mysteries of life. Through these recent researching, humans also hope that they can live better and longer. Scientists have been committed to rule out many genetic defects, enhance human immunity from diseases, and cultivate "backup" organs or limbs so the damaged/aged parts can be replaced in the near future, while also attempting to reach the ultimate goal of everlasting.
However, the movement system that allows human beings to completely off-trek from the evolutionary mechanism might be a wonderful task. However, I can't personally agree with these points not only because of ecological balance, but also ethical considerations. Let us assume human eventually reach this goal in very near future—the outcome will inevitably lead serious crisis from the evolution point of view.
Just a while ago, I noticed news that was Australia koalas related: the successful koala protection has led uncontrollable over-breeding and ecological imbalance. Therefore, the Australian government has no choice but to slaughter over amount koalas.
Such embarrassing news for cute Koalas (always been regarded as a national treasure). It is beyond the original expected conservation policy, also reveals the arrogance and self-righteous of human beings.
Since billion years revolutions, various species on the earth have been constantly evolving, and each other is competing with each other, winning and defeating under the survival mechanism. From the subjective favor of human beings, the intervention and interference produce the unaffordable consequences.
For example, extinct flora and fauna becomes fossils and no longer lives in the ecological environment of today's earth is definitely with it is own reasons. Such as trilobites and nautilus, the later had been extinct, but the former still survive well in the ocean—all because the Nature adapted itself.
Seems human beings are always arrogant and want to play the creator. For example, not long ago, archaeologists excavated the ancient elephant in the tundra near the Arctic Circle. Then some scientists began to rush to extract DNA, hoping to copy the living "long hairy image", However, let the extinct ancient animal successfully reproduce on the earth or let other more deadly paleontology re-live on the earth, what does it mean to humans or other species on the earth? ? I am afraid that not only do more harm than good, but there are things might get out of hands.
Or we can look at the sci-fi plot in the movie "Jurassic Park". In the history of the world's 4.6 billion years, although life is very late, the pace of evolution is very fast, on the big stage of the earth, all the species are just actors who keep coming and going. Some even have the evolutionary relationship with each other like relay players, so when some species play their own roles, and after completing the task of inheriting and evolving, it is necessary to naturally step down and let the stage be given to a new generation of species.
From the most primitive life "anaerobic bacteria" to the "blue-green algae" of single-celled organisms, to the "trilobite", to the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era, to the mammals, and to the humans of the late primates, of course. Human beings are not the most perfect and ultimate creatures of evolution. However, at least for now, they are the most evolved creatures since the birth of the Earth. The existence of human beings is due to the evolution of generations of species since the "anaerobic bacteria" emerging.
Or, for those other species that are still accompanying us and even providing human survival, whether it is animals and plants, we only need to adopt the attitude of “compliance with nature”, without interfering with the creator’s job duties--the evolution.
If there are new species created from the nature, it is not something humans can resist, and the old species must complete its phased transfer and evolution task and may get extinct down the road, but human beings cannot alter these changes, because it is absolutely an act that seriously interferes with the mechanism of biological evolution, and the consequences could be unimaginable.
The most ridiculous joke I have heard is that there are many scientists’ or conservationists’ reason is “Or our children need to see specimens in museums". I really can't understand what kind of childish point of view like this. Was it necessary to conserve certain species only to let the children of future generations see them alive?
However, observe form Earth history: the selection from the creator, the species that are naturally extinct were over hundreds of millions. Is it proper to let human define those species should fit or not?
The earth is like a stage for life, and the natural resources are very limited. The extinction of the species is to remove resources about non-fit lives and continues to transmit evolutionary tasks.
Imagine if the dinosaurs were not extinct, would there be mammals that would flourish on the Earth stage later? Will humanity have the development of civilization today? Another example, what if the original Javanese (very original Beijing people) or the cavemen Neanderthal survive until today and leave no room for contemporized human? We are just one of many species in the history of the Earth. It is no proper to interfere the evolutionary process.
When human are dealing the so-called "conservation work", must proceed without disturbing the evolution mechanism of the species. To prevent from unnecessary killing because of greed (because this kind of activities also interferes with the natural evolution), and the rest is creator’s choices.
Let the ancient creatures who have already stepped down to resurrect, or just to let the children of future generations marvel to forcibly continue the conservation of certain species, or actively cultivate the behavior of some specific creatures for the self-interest of human beings. It should stop immediately. Otherwise, the consequences will not only make humans paralyzed, but will further cause humans and other earth species to fall into unrecoverable situations.
For instance, Taiwan has deliberately introduced and mass-produced "shou snails", resulting in serious losses of crops and almost causing ecological imbalances. Australia once produced a large number of hares and almost destroys the natural balance and becomes the disaster about the Australian environment. Inhibition, the result not only seriously damages agriculture, but also caused other ecological imbalances such as kangaroos. Later, it took a lot of work to restore the original state. Another example is trying to conserve the shark. In fact, the focus is only on actively suppressing the mass killing of the shark in order to obtaining shark fin. If human beings are ignorant and pursuing over-conservation which leads shark number increases, it will definitely cause an imbalance about the marine ecology.
"Appendix related news: Saving the ecology of Kangaroo Island in South Australia Experts called for the killing of 20,000 koalas.
The British Daily Telegraph reported on the first day that ecologists have called for the killing of 20,000 koalas, one of Australia's most popular tourist spots, to maintain their ecology.
The newspaper reported that the number of kangaroos on Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia has risen from 5,000 to five thousand three years ago; raising concerns that the eucalyptus tree eaten by the marsupials will soon disappear.
A confidential report from the South Australian Provincial Government's Wild Advisory Council said that existing "soft" measures such as ligation and displacement may not have the best interest in conservation.
Author :Chang Kai-Chi
Recently, animal conservationist paid more and more attention about the perspective of the entire earth species evolution-- it is undeniable that human beings are one of the many species and are also under evolutionary mechanism control. However, begin the interference with the evolution of species via tools usage, bio-knowledge progressing, technology highly developing even starting the genetic decoding.
Perhaps the driving force comes from the curiosity about the mysteries of life. Through these recent researching, humans also hope that they can live better and longer. Scientists have been committed to rule out many genetic defects, enhance human immunity from diseases, and cultivate "backup" organs or limbs so the damaged/aged parts can be replaced in the near future, while also attempting to reach the ultimate goal of everlasting.
However, the movement system that allows human beings to completely off-trek from the evolutionary mechanism might be a wonderful task. However, I can't personally agree with these points not only because of ecological balance, but also ethical considerations. Let us assume human eventually reach this goal in very near future—the outcome will inevitably lead serious crisis from the evolution point of view.
Just a while ago, I noticed news that was Australia koalas related: the successful koala protection has led uncontrollable over-breeding and ecological imbalance. Therefore, the Australian government has no choice but to slaughter over amount koalas.
Such embarrassing news for cute Koalas (always been regarded as a national treasure). It is beyond the original expected conservation policy, also reveals the arrogance and self-righteous of human beings.
Since billion years revolutions, various species on the earth have been constantly evolving, and each other is competing with each other, winning and defeating under the survival mechanism. From the subjective favor of human beings, the intervention and interference produce the unaffordable consequences.
For example, extinct flora and fauna becomes fossils and no longer lives in the ecological environment of today's earth is definitely with it is own reasons. Such as trilobites and nautilus, the later had been extinct, but the former still survive well in the ocean—all because the Nature adapted itself.
Seems human beings are always arrogant and want to play the creator. For example, not long ago, archaeologists excavated the ancient elephant in the tundra near the Arctic Circle. Then some scientists began to rush to extract DNA, hoping to copy the living "long hairy image", However, let the extinct ancient animal successfully reproduce on the earth or let other more deadly paleontology re-live on the earth, what does it mean to humans or other species on the earth? ? I am afraid that not only do more harm than good, but there are things might get out of hands.
Or we can look at the sci-fi plot in the movie "Jurassic Park". In the history of the world's 4.6 billion years, although life is very late, the pace of evolution is very fast, on the big stage of the earth, all the species are just actors who keep coming and going. Some even have the evolutionary relationship with each other like relay players, so when some species play their own roles, and after completing the task of inheriting and evolving, it is necessary to naturally step down and let the stage be given to a new generation of species.
From the most primitive life "anaerobic bacteria" to the "blue-green algae" of single-celled organisms, to the "trilobite", to the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era, to the mammals, and to the humans of the late primates, of course. Human beings are not the most perfect and ultimate creatures of evolution. However, at least for now, they are the most evolved creatures since the birth of the Earth. The existence of human beings is due to the evolution of generations of species since the "anaerobic bacteria" emerging.
Or, for those other species that are still accompanying us and even providing human survival, whether it is animals and plants, we only need to adopt the attitude of “compliance with nature”, without interfering with the creator’s job duties--the evolution.
If there are new species created from the nature, it is not something humans can resist, and the old species must complete its phased transfer and evolution task and may get extinct down the road, but human beings cannot alter these changes, because it is absolutely an act that seriously interferes with the mechanism of biological evolution, and the consequences could be unimaginable.
The most ridiculous joke I have heard is that there are many scientists’ or conservationists’ reason is “Or our children need to see specimens in museums". I really can't understand what kind of childish point of view like this. Was it necessary to conserve certain species only to let the children of future generations see them alive?
However, observe form Earth history: the selection from the creator, the species that are naturally extinct were over hundreds of millions. Is it proper to let human define those species should fit or not?
The earth is like a stage for life, and the natural resources are very limited. The extinction of the species is to remove resources about non-fit lives and continues to transmit evolutionary tasks.
Imagine if the dinosaurs were not extinct, would there be mammals that would flourish on the Earth stage later? Will humanity have the development of civilization today? Another example, what if the original Javanese (very original Beijing people) or the cavemen Neanderthal survive until today and leave no room for contemporized human? We are just one of many species in the history of the Earth. It is no proper to interfere the evolutionary process.
When human are dealing the so-called "conservation work", must proceed without disturbing the evolution mechanism of the species. To prevent from unnecessary killing because of greed (because this kind of activities also interferes with the natural evolution), and the rest is creator’s choices.
Let the ancient creatures who have already stepped down to resurrect, or just to let the children of future generations marvel to forcibly continue the conservation of certain species, or actively cultivate the behavior of some specific creatures for the self-interest of human beings. It should stop immediately. Otherwise, the consequences will not only make humans paralyzed, but will further cause humans and other earth species to fall into unrecoverable situations.
For instance, Taiwan has deliberately introduced and mass-produced "shou snails", resulting in serious losses of crops and almost causing ecological imbalances. Australia once produced a large number of hares and almost destroys the natural balance and becomes the disaster about the Australian environment. Inhibition, the result not only seriously damages agriculture, but also caused other ecological imbalances such as kangaroos. Later, it took a lot of work to restore the original state. Another example is trying to conserve the shark. In fact, the focus is only on actively suppressing the mass killing of the shark in order to obtaining shark fin. If human beings are ignorant and pursuing over-conservation which leads shark number increases, it will definitely cause an imbalance about the marine ecology.
"Appendix related news: Saving the ecology of Kangaroo Island in South Australia Experts called for the killing of 20,000 koalas.
The British Daily Telegraph reported on the first day that ecologists have called for the killing of 20,000 koalas, one of Australia's most popular tourist spots, to maintain their ecology.
The newspaper reported that the number of kangaroos on Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia has risen from 5,000 to five thousand three years ago; raising concerns that the eucalyptus tree eaten by the marsupials will soon disappear.
A confidential report from the South Australian Provincial Government's Wild Advisory Council said that existing "soft" measures such as ligation and displacement may not have the best interest in conservation.
Some ecologists believe that mass destruction is the only way. University of Adelaide ecologist Peyton said that without control, Kangaroo Island has bad situations. "Every tree will die but the rude koalas are relying on the trees."