What kind of ecological and environmental protection concept and resource development concept should we hold? Are environmental protection and resource development irreconcilable contradictions? I don't think so. Because their goals are the same, all for the survival of mankind. Therefore, scientific ecological environment protection and resource development can realize the unity of opposites.
I believe that all people who care about environmental problems have a sincere heart and hope that our future generations can survive better. We should not doubt those who exploit natural resources in order to make people in poor areas get rid of poverty and get rich as soon as possible. They also have a heart to protect and improve the survival of people in poor areas. Only those who strongly advocate protection think about the long-term survival of all mankind, while those who actively advocate development think about solving the survival problems of people in local areas at present. What reason do we have to deprive local people of their right to subsistence and development?
Over the years, with the propaganda efforts of various environmental protection organizations, the general public has a certain degree of environmental awareness, which is the credit of various environmental protection organizations and people, but having environmental awareness does not mean knowing environmental protection. Many of us are environmentally conscious, but out of consideration for our own immediate interests and greed for enjoyment, we are unwilling to consciously abide by environmental standards. For example, those of us who are not worried about food and clothing, in order to taste the game, to wear high-grade fur fashion and to show off our wealth, have promoted and stimulated the emergence and development of the wildlife trading market, making our exploitation and utilization of natural resources beyond the capacity of nature. In this process, the consumers who should really be blamed are those who have no worries about food and clothing, not those who have no food and clothing and have to ask for natural resources in order to survive, and they should not be accused of developing and utilizing natural resources in order to get people in poor areas out of trouble as soon as possible.
Why did environmental problems not attract people's attention at least before the industrial revolution, but now it has become a global urgent problem that is increasingly affecting human survival? This is because in the past, the demand for natural resources and various kinds of garbage produced by human beings have not exceeded the bearing capacity of nature, but now, the over-exploitation and utilization of nature and a large number of domestic and industrial garbage have exceeded the bearing capacity of nature. How did this happen? It is the constant pursuit of material and spiritual enjoyment after solving the problem of food and clothing. To solve the environmental problems completely, we must restrain people's expanding desire for pleasure. Therefore, when we publicize environmental protection and expose environmental problems, the most important thing is to advocate a moral concept of helping the poor for the rich and lead a simple life among us urbanites who have no worries about food and clothing and enjoy modern civilized life. Those who live in poor and backward areas are backward and simple enough to make a living. How to solve the problem of their survival and development?
We should oppose dogmatism and extreme environmental protection. On the surface, this kind of thought seems to be correct and extremely chaotic, but in fact it is very selfish and irresponsible, because it deprives people in poor and backward areas of their right to subsistence and development.
In remote, poor and backward areas, local people hunt, cut down trees and burn wasteland in order to survive. It is precisely because the dawn of modern civilization has not yet reached them that they are still following this backward lifestyle. Under such living conditions, what do you want them to eat without hunting or cutting down trees? Burn what? With what? Some of our environmentalists always indiscriminately criticize the development and utilization of natural resources by local governments and local residents in these areas, and often make a well-intentioned mistake, that is, you can't cut down the virgin forests here, kill wild animals, build dams on rivers here, and keep the original features here. You can promote economic development by developing green tourism. But at present, our national quality and environmental awareness are not high. Is tourism really green? Will the development of tourism not cause damage to the ecological environment? Let's see what happens. 1. In the past, local people only produced a small amount of domestic garbage, and there was almost no non-degradable garbage; Nowadays, due to the influx of a large number of tourists, a lot of domestic garbage has been brought, especially those plastic food packaging bags that were rarely seen in the past; Whose fault is this? 2. Because tourists want to taste the local game, the original non-existent wildlife trade came into being; In the past, local people only hunted and excavated wild animals and plants in small quantities to meet their own consumption; Now, in order to meet the needs of tourists and increase their economic income, they begin to kill and dig wild animals and plants in large numbers; Whose fault is this? 3. In the past, the local people were simple and sincere; Now, with all kinds of tourists, all kinds of bizarre culture, all kinds of fake and shoddy goods and colorful liars brought by illegal traders, the local people have benefited a lot from deception, and the folk customs are no longer simple and sincere; Whose fault is this?
The Lugu Lake scenic spot in Yunnan is such a living example, which was reported by CCTV. However, this report simply blames the relevant departments of the local government. How many people have thought about who brought all this? This situation has not spared almost all scenic spots. I have no objection to developing tourism here. What I want to say is that developing tourism is not a panacea for environmental protection and development. Perhaps, developing tourism will do more damage to the ecological environment than developing natural resources. In fact, tourism itself is also a kind of utilization of natural resources, so the development and utilization of natural resources is not a question of availability, but a question of how to develop it.
The protection of the ecological environment should not be blindly pursued intact, and nothing can be changed. People who hold this extreme environmental protection view, while caring about the environment, ignore the problems of survival and development, especially those in remote, poor and backward areas. They idealize and dogmatize environmental protection, making it lose its vitality. Such people eat and drink by themselves and enjoy the benefits of modern civilization in the city without any worries. Some of them have been to remote, poor and backward areas, let alone living and working there. A few people have been there. It was just a trip in a luxury SUV. They just want to take this opportunity to reserve a back garden for the city people to eat, drink and explore. According to their view, human beings may have to return to primitive society to meet the requirements. This kind of thinking can only bind us and make society stagnate.
Once I went to Dulongjiang, Yunnan to take photos. I was deeply impressed by the well-preserved virgin forests and clear streams and rivers there, and I was indelibly impressed by the poor living conditions of local residents. However, what impressed me the most was what a border guard said to me: "It's green mountains and green waters for you tourists, but for those of us who are here every day, it's a wasteland." Please note that this is just the words of a person who only needs to serve here for two years. What will happen to people who have lived here for generations? This sentence is like a slap in the face for me, which makes me awake a lot when I once shouted environmental protection.
We can't regard all the exploitation and utilization of natural resources as the destruction of the ecological environment, which is the real selfishness and dogma. We are opposed to blind and excessive destructive development regardless of long-term interests. We have made an ecological assessment of those who can help local people get rid of poverty and become rich and civilized, taking into account the ecological recovery after development, and orderly, scientific and reasonable development will not be arbitrarily accused and stopped. In fact, as long as it is developed scientifically and reasonably, that kind of partial and temporary destruction will not cause irreversible ecological disaster, but will form a new ecological landscape and even improve the original harsh natural environment. This example is not without it. Far away is Dujiangyan in Sichuan and the Grand Canal running through the north and south, and near is Qiandao Lake in Zhejiang and Lubuge Hydropower Station in Yunnan.
In terms of environmental protection, our most urgent goal at present is not simply to blame and stop the development and utilization of natural resources, but to improve the quality of the whole people, especially to improve the environmental awareness of modern urban people who live in cities, lead civilized lives and have no worries about food and clothing. People who have no environmental awareness in remote and poor areas do little damage to the environment, and in order to ensure their own survival, some can even say that their behavior itself is a chain in the local ecological environment. On the contrary, we educated modern urbanites, for pleasure, have stimulated the development of some luxury goods industries, such as furs, high-grade wooden furniture, game restaurants, disposable utensils and so on. The development of these industries has indeed caused a thorough and devastating blow to the ecological environment, and the talents in modern civilized cities are indeed the direct and indirect killers of the ecological environment.
Imagine if there are two people, one is a rich man who has no worries about food and clothing, the other is a poor man who has no shelter and food, and a cherished wild animal appears in front of them. The rich kill it to enjoy fur and game, while the poor kill it to keep out the cold and fill their stomachs. Are both behaviors to blame?