Whenever an earthquake occurs, there will always be a lot of news about "animals repaying kindness" and "animal saviors" on the Internet. In fact, the seismology and zoology community have long reached a consensus that animals cannot predict earthquakes.
From the perspective of animal behavior, some individuals, such as dogs, or cats holding mice to their owners may be driven by animal instincts to perform behaviors that seem to be "protecting the owner" and "protecting humans". These situations actually have the logic of animal behavior itself and are not suitable for too much explanation.
Misunderstanding of some animal behaviors
In recent years, thanks to the attention of the state and the international community, wildlife protection has gradually entered the public's vision. With the rise of online media and social platforms, giant pandas, thorns, rabbits, snow leopards, wild elephants... many animal images have become "traffic stars" and have gained a lot of attention and comments from netizens.
However, we often see some opinions that deviate from facts and understand animals based on human needs and emotions.
For example, some well-known "popular science" literary works emphasize that animals are "spiritual" and "humanly" and perform anthropomorphic emotional descriptions, hoping to "use this to awaken human conscience and not slaughter these animals again"; in the past few years, there were more widely circulated "environmental protection" articles, interpreting some wild animal deaths as animals taking the initiative to "success" in a deteriorating natural environment; in addition, naming giant pandas, which gives human emotions to a certain extent, and putting on pets in clothes and shoes is not actually what pets need, but humans' own ideas impose on pets, etc.
Some people may think that such public opinion is a good starting point, which can also promote society's attention and improvement of the fate of wildlife welfare, which is understandable.
But is there a potential problem with doing this? When a wrong argument serves the original intention of the right, what should we think of this "magic defeat magic" that some people talk about?
I think there are many methods and paths to do something meaningful, but not all methods are correct and not all paths can work. Getting closer to the right goal in the wrong way is likely to be a mistake and it will not be able to achieve the goal in the end. We should not promote environmental protection and wildlife protection in this way.
Why shouldn't human emotions and needs be projected onto animals?
① First of all, the concern shown by this thinking is often far from the actual needs of animals and is likely not beneficial to wild animals.
For example, as a large carnivore living alone in the wild, some of the captive juveniles of giant pandas are misunderstood as "forcibly disbanded" on the Internet platform when they are eligible to leave their mothers' care at the right age. Some publics require breeding institutions to "reunite mothers and sons", which is obviously contrary to the natural habits of giant pandas.
In addition, the normal body size of the elderly giant pandas is said to be "malnutrition", and a necessary and ethical physical examination is interpreted as "abuse of giant pandas". These "care" are of no benefit other than bringing negative work pressure to the feeding agency.
Previously, the giant panda "Baoquan" was skinny and bone-skinned, which attracted widespread attention. Subsequently, the Chinese Giant Panda Protection Research Center responded that the panda has less hair and looks slimming, has a normal weight and no health problems. Image source: Internet screenshot
② Secondly, even if such public opinion ultimately advocates the correct approach, its significance is very limited and the side effects are very obvious.
Using human thinking and feelings to understand animals is essentially an anthropocentric thinking. Emotional projection may promote the protection of some wild animals, but it can also hinder the survival of wild animals and even the interests of human beings themselves.
For example, domestic cats are widely loved companion animals, but many breeders believe that being able to live freely outdoors with free-range life is in line with the welfare of domestic cats. If domestic cats are raised only by relying on the "fast food" emotional projection, domestic cats will bring irresponsible random killing and the subsequent population decline to the local native species, and will also be exposed to various pathogens and other safety hazards that threaten themselves, and may even promote the spread of diseases between humans, pets and wild animals, causing endless harm.
When people who love anthropomorphic animals find that their preferences are not "cute" or "spiritual" or even participate in cruel competition for survival, how can this misplaced love be placed? On the other hand, emotional projection has positives and negatives. Animals such as snakes and spiders are important components of the ecosystem. However, traditional cultural impressions such as "cold-blooded" and "malignant" often lead to social platforms to avoid the delivery of relevant popular science content due to concerns about the audience's disgust. How can this help protect the complete biodiversity and ecological environment?