After reading the excerpts on wildlife in China from When A Billion Chinese Jump How China Will Save Mankind -- Or Destroy It by Jonathan Watts (I met him in Wuhan University in person), I just realized that China is still a developing country because we are eating and consuming wildlife for our own interest. In China, meat is still more expensive than vegetables. Chinese prefer to attain protein via consuming meat. Many Chinese families in rural areas cannot afford to only eat vegetables or to be a vegetarian and Vegan if they want enough protein and nutrition. In addition, many Chinese believe the magic of traditional Chinese medicines that utilize animals as ingredients.
In the West, the systematic study of nature did not hit full stride until industrialization. Then too, the utility was a major motivation. However, traditions still play an important role in China.
Jonathan Watts said that “Li Shizhen (1518–93) was the author of the premier pharmacopeia for Chinese traditional medicine, the Bencao Gangmu, which listed more than 1,800 treatments. Along with other traditional medical guides, this led millions to believe that stewed turtle cures cancer, crocodile meat relieves asthma, pangolin scales regulate menstruation, and scorpion venom helps stroke victims.” Besides, Li said that desiccated sea horses for breast cancer, dog penises for virility, deer hooves for arthritis, baby snakes for sore throats, and ant lotions for beriberi. “More than four centuries after his death, Dr. Li’s remedies continue to have ever more serious consequences for wildlife. Though well-intentioned reserves.”
“The government protects China’s traditions better than it protects the habitat protection. Instead, it established guidelines for the management of captive-breeding centers. In effect, the law encouraged the setting up of farms like Xiongsen that supplied restaurants and pharmacies.” “Wildlife has been caught in a pincer between traditional medicine and modern development. The government offers little protection from either. Bureaucratic efforts at conservation are stymied by weak laws.”
As a Chinese, I feel guilty to eat wildlife especially wild animals in China. Changing diet habits and traditions is difficult, but we have to do it since wildlife is punishing us throughout viruses like COVID-19 and avian influenza.
What is interesting is that I am hesitant to put a picture of bat here because Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) makes plain: ‘It is the transmission between people that has spread the disease globally’. This means that in many countries there is no chance of getting the virus from a bat. For example, in the UK, there are no known zoonotic (harmful to humans) coronaviruses found in bats. For this reason, conservationists are now working hard to dispel the image of bats as dangerous. The fault, they argue, lies not with bats, but with human interference with the environment, such as deforestation and the wildlife trade, which brings all forms of wildlife much closer to humans and livestock than would naturally happen. ‘The live wildlife trade, in which many different species of wild animals are brought together in markets, can provide the conditions for spillover events,’ explains Joe Nunez-Mino, director of communications and fundraising at the BCT.
It is true that bats are not the scapegoats, human beings are the reason why this pandemic is happening. Some experts said that to prevent future outbreaks we need to stop uncontrolled habitat destruction and control the trade in wild animals. To these reasons that 236 wildlife protection groups came together at the start of April to pen an open letter to the World Health Organisation, the Office International Epizoologie, and the United Nations Environment Programme, calling on them to permanently ban live wildlife markets and the use of wildlife in traditional medicine. The letter states: ‘The Covid-19 outbreak is believed to have originated at wildlife markets in China, and transmitted to humans as a result of close proximity between wildlife and people. Further research suggests that bats and pangolins may have been involved in the transmission chain of the virus to people. But let us stress that it was the actions of people that created the environment in which this transmission was possible.’
(Photo Credit: Geographical)
Excerpts from When A Billion Chinese Jump How China Will Save Mankind -- Or Destroy It by Jonathan Watts
Yangtze finless porpoises, fondly known as river pigs, arced out of the water. The porpoises, only recently added to the endangered species list, had been successfully relocated to the haven. More encouraging still was a nearby wetland, where our group saw herds of magnificent large-antlered milu, or Père David’s deer. This animal, which was indigenous to China, showed how species could be pulled back from the brink of extinction. At the exhibition center artists’ illustrations showed how the animal had almost been wiped out. They were already at risk in the nineteenth century, when the French missionary Father Armand David became the first Westerner to record their existence. The last known herd was in the emperor’s hunting grounds. This stock was decimated by Western smugglers, who took the deer for exhibition to Europe, and by British and Japanese troops who ate most of the remaining animals around the time of the Boxer Rebellion. To save the species, the last eighteen specimens were taken to Woburn Abbey in Bedfordshire, where they were successfully bred and reintroduced to China. There were now 3,000 of the deer worldwide, including about 500 at Tian-e-Zhou. Despite fears of inbreeding, biologists said there were no signs of genetic problems.
The park’s manager said, over the past twenty years the baiji has been the victim of politics and scientific disputes. The view in the West was that more should be done to conserve the dolphin in the river, its natural habitat. The view in China was that it should be moved to the oxbow lake. In the end, they couldn’t decide, so the baiji is the victim.”
These opposing outlooks were at the heart of the dispute about environmental protection in China. Western scientists and conservationists wanted to leave vast tracts of the country as an unspoiled and wild sanctuary. The Chinese authorities counterargued that economic development was a greater priority. They accused the West of hypocrisy in calling for protection of forests and species in other nations. After all, industrialized nations had already decimated their own woodlands. Chinese authorities tended to argue that species were best protected by fencing them off, penning them up, and helping them breed with artificial techniques.
The philosophies were different. As the American zoologist Richard Harris noted: “The root of the problem lies in Chinese failure to value wildness for its own sake ... China currently lacks effective wildlife conservation because it has yet to acknowledge what wildlife really is and what conservation really means.”
The stakes could not be much higher. One of the strongest arguments for a different approach in China is that it has so much more to lose. the species in the northern hemisphere are found here. Sichuan alone contains a greater range of life than all of North America. China is a treasure trove of biodiversity and home to some of the world’s mightiest beasts, including the huge Himalayan griffin, wild yaks that weigh a ton and can outrun a jeep, and the world’s largest amphibian, the 40-kilogram giant salamander. Most have retreated to the peripheries of Han civilization: the high peaks,barren plains, dense jungles, and deep waters. But as human activity spreads even to these remote areas, many mammals are threatened. Other less well-known reptiles, insects, and varieties of moss are dying off completely. It is a similar story worldwide. The rate of species extinction in the first decade of the twenty-first century is many orders of magnitude. The species in the northern hemisphere are found here. Sichuan alone contains a greater range of life than all of North America. Nationawide,China is a treasure trove of biodiversity and home to some of the world’s mightiest beasts, including the huge Himalayan griffin, wild yaks that weigh a ton and can outrun a jeep, and the world’s largest amphibian, the 40-kilogram giant salamander. higher than at any time in the history of the planet.
But the situation is particularly grim in China, where the die-off is reckoned to be taking place at twice the speed of the global average. According to the China Species Red List, it is accelerating.
Half nationwide, China came late to conservation. Although certain areas were nominally protected more than fifty years ago, it was only after the country opened up to the outside world in 1978 that any systematic attempt was made to track the populations of species and support those most at risk of extinction. After that, the central and provincial governments set aside 2,531 nature. States began protecting nature around the turn of the twentieth century, its population density was ten people to a square kilometer. When China started, its population was squeezed 145 to the same area. There was not much room left for other forms of life.
Many environmentalists—foreign and domestic—believe Chinese culture is skewed against the wild. There, nature has traditionally been valued for its utility and scope for consumption. It was something to tame and control.
In the West, the systematic study of nature did not hit full stride until industrialization. Then too, utility was a major motivation. Many researchers looked to the wild for new dyes, ingredients, chemicals, and other resources. In China, the most influential study of natural resources came far earlier. Li Shizhen (1518–93) was the author of the premier pharmacopoeia for Chinese traditional medicine, the Bencao Gangmu, which listed more than 1,800 treatments. Along with other traditional medical guides, this led millions to believe that stewed turtle cures cancer, crocodile meat relieves asthma, pangolin scales regulate menstruation, and scorpion venom helps stroke victims. Besides, desiccated sea horses for breast cancer, dog penises for virility, deer hooves for arthritis, baby snakes for sore throats, and ant lotions for beriberi.
More than four centuries after his death, Dr. Li’s remedies continue to have ever more serious consequences for wildlife. Though well intentioned reserves.
History helps to explain the divergent viewpoints. In the West, the systematic study of nature did not hit full stride until industrialization. Then too, utility was a major motivation. Many researchers looked to the wild for new dyes, ingredients, chemicals, and other resources. In China, the most influential study of natural resources came far earlier. Li Shizhen (1518–93) was the author of the premier pharmacopoeia for Chinese traditional medicine, the Bencao Gangmu, which listed more than 1,800 treatments. Along with other traditional medical guides, this led millions to believe that stewed turtle cures cancer, crocodile meat relieves asthma, pangolin scales regulate menstruation, and scorpion venom helps stroke victims.
More than four centuries after his death, Dr. Li’s remedies continue to have ever more serious consequences for wildlife. Though well intentioned and respected for his scholarship, Li wrote in an age of abundant natural resources and low population density. Applied in the modern age, his prescriptions have become death warrants for many of the species he named. About 1,500 varieties of flora and fauna are close to being wiped 20 out in the wild because of the demand for traditional medicine. populations have increased, but only in captivity. Mixed with modern free- market principles and animal husbandry techniques, Li’s teachings on traditional medicine have led to the establishment of commercial breeding centers for several rare animals. Though their owners often claim to be conservationists, most facilities are little more than battery farms.
If you look at the 5,000-year history of Chinese medicine, the famous doctor Li Shizhen noted that every part of the tiger’s body is a treasure.On the black market, a single animal could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The bones, used in tonics, were the most valuable part:the 25 kilograms yielded by the average tiger can fetch 2.4 million yuan。They were either lying or lawbreaking. The State Forestry Administration allowed sales of the wine on condition that the only bones used in it were from lions. That was possible—Xiongsen has 200 captive-($343,000), about ten times the price of a pelt.
A showroom containing the skeleton of a sixteen-year-old tiger and six huge clay urns each filled with 2,000 liters of “bone-strengthening wine.” Assistants encourage visitors to buy half-liter tiger-shaped bottles of the tonic for about $90. Each drop, they claimed, was distilled in vats containing the paws of tigers that died of natural causes.
They were either lying or lawbreaking. The State Forestry Administration allowed sales of the wine on condition that the only bones used in it were from lions. That was possible—Xiongsen has 200 captive-bred African lions—but in Chinese medicine these beasts were traditionally considered a poor substitute for tiger.
The park epitomized the utilitarian, nature-conquering approach to the environment and its consequences. At Xiongsen, the number of captive tigers had surged from twelve in 1992 to 1,300. But in the wild, the population had shrunk from several thousand in the 1950s to fewer than fifty. The trend was clear: the fearsome jungle predator had been subdued into a caged farm animal. The government had taken half a step away from these traditions by putting a ban in place. But it had not halted the industrial production of tigers even when the ancient tonic for health had become a drag on the economy.
Nor had there been an attempt to change the traditions behind the demand for tiger. At a pharmacy outside, the displays were filled with desiccated sea horses for breast cancer, dog penises for virility, deer hooves for arthritis, baby snakes for sore throats, and ant lotions for beriberi. One rheumatism treatment had a picture of a tiger on the packet, but the only animal part listed among the ingredients was powdered leopard bone.
Tibetan medicine, which was increasingly popular, placed just as much importance on acquiring ingredients from rare species, such as antelope horn, snake meat, and caterpillar fungus. Some potions proved useful, but there was not enough consideration of efficacy and rarity. In many cases endangered animals were being slaughtered for nothing. The saiga antelope,which once roamed the plains of China and Russia in huge herds, was hunted to the brink of extinction because its translucent pale pink horns were thought to have magical healing qualities in traditional medicine.
Western science suggested, however, that consumers could get the same country’s wildlife. Health ministry officials defend Dr. Li’s ancient prescriptions as part of an almost blanket endorsement of traditional medicine. Rare animals are protected only selectively and usually inadequately. The Wildlife Protection Law of 1988 epitomized the superficiality of much conservation work in China. On the surface, the law was progressive, prohibiting the killing of about 1,300 endangered species, encouraging forestry bureaus to set up nature reserves, and designating all wild animals as the property of the state.
The Chinese version I translated:
长江江豚，人们亲切地称它们为江豚，它们从水中跃出。最近才被列入濒危物种名单的江豚已被成功地转移到这个避难所。更令人鼓舞的是，我们在附近的一片湿地那里看到了成群的鹿群。这种原产于中国的动物向我们展示了如何将物种从灭绝的边缘拉回来。在展览中心，艺术家们的插图展示了这种动物是如何几乎灭绝的。在19世纪，当法国传教士阿尔芒·大卫成为第一个记录它们存在的西方人时，它们已经处于危险之中。最后发现的鹿群是在皇帝的狩猎场。西方走私者把这些鹿带到欧洲展览，英国和日本军队在义和团运动期间吃掉了大部分剩余的动物，大量捕杀了这些鹿。为了拯救这个物种，最后的18个标本被带到贝德福德郡的沃本修道院，在那里它们被成功繁殖并重新引入中国。现在全世界有3000只麋鹿，其中包括500只在天一洲自然保护公园。尽管担心近亲繁殖，生物学家说没有出现遗传问题的迹象。
公园的管理经理认为，在过去的20年里，白暨豚一直是政治和科学争论的牺牲品。西方的观点是，应该做更多的工作将海豚保护在在河中——它的自然栖息地。中国的观点是，应该把它移到牛轭湖。最后，他们无法做出决定，于是白暨豚成了受害者。
这些对立的观点是中国环境保护争论的核心。西方科学家和自然资源保护主义者想要把这个国家的大片土地变成一个未受破坏的野生保护区。中国当局反驳说，经济发展才是更重要的。他们指责西方国家呼吁保护其他国家的森林和物种是虚伪的。毕竟，工业化国家已经大量砍伐了他们自己的林地。中国当局倾向于认为，最好的保护物种的方法是将它们隔离，圈养，并帮助它们用人工技术繁殖。
各种哲学不一而终。正如美国动物学家理查德•哈里斯(Richard Harris)所指出的:“问题的根源在于，中国人没有重视野生动物自身的利益……中国目前缺乏有效的野生动物保护，因为它还没有认识到野生动物到底是什么，保护到底意味着什么。”
风险再高不过了。最有力的论据之一是，大多数人都退到了汉族文明的边缘:高耸的山峰，贫瘠的平原，茂密的丛林和深水。但是作为人类活动，即使在这些偏远地区，许多哺乳动物也受到威胁。其他不太知名的爬行动物、昆虫和各种苔藓正在消失完全。世界各地都有类似的故事。在21世纪的第一个十年，物种灭绝的速度呈现许多数量级不同的方法。
在中国，另一种不同的做法是，它会失去更多。北半球的物种在这里被发现，光四川就
包含比整个北美都要多的生命。在全国范围内，中国是生物多样性的宝库，是一些世界上最强大的动物的家园，包括巨大的喜马拉雅狮鹫，重达一吨甚至超过一辆吉普车的野牦牛，以及世界上最大的两栖动物，重达40公斤的大鲵。比地球历史上任何时候都要高。
但中国的情况尤其严峻，据估计，死亡人数的增长速度是全球平均水平的两倍。根据中国物种红色名录，它正在加速。
中国全国一半的地区在保护环境方面起步较晚。尽管50多年前，某些地区名义上受到保护，但直到1978年中国对外开放后，这些地区才开始有系统地追踪物种数量，并为那些濒临灭绝的物种提供支持。此后，中央和省级政府共划出2531个自然保护区。在20世纪初中国开始保护自然，其人口密度为每平方公里10人。当中国开始建设时，人口密度达到每平方公里145人，因而没有多少空间留给其他形式的生命了。
许多环保人士——无论是国外的还是国内的——都相信中国文化对野生环境有偏见。在那里，自然在传统上有价值在于它的功用和可消费范围。自然是一种需要驯服和控制的东西。每一种动物都可以被食用或用于中药。在之前出版的为数不多的关于野生动物书籍中，《历史上的经济鸟类》有助于解释这些不同的观点。
历史有助于解释这些不同的观点。在西方，对自然的系统研究直到工业化才全面展开。然后，效用也是一个主要的动机。许多研究人员从野外寻找新的染料、成分、化学物质和其他资源。在中国，最具影响力的自然资源研究要早得多。李时珍(1518-93)著有《本草纲目》，列出了1800多种治疗方法。与其他传统医学指南一样，这让数百万人相信炖甲鱼可以治愈癌症，鳄鱼肉可以缓解哮喘，穿山甲鳞片可以调节月经，蝎子毒液可以帮助中风患者。(《本草纲目》还指出，干燥的海马可以治疗乳腺癌，狗的阴茎可以治疗阳痿，鹿蹄可以治疗关节炎，幼蛇可以治疗咽喉痛，蚂蚁乳液可以治疗脚气病。)
在他死后四个多世纪，李博士的治疗方法继续对野生动物产生越来越严重的后果。尽管李的初衷是好的，也因为他的学识而受到尊重，但他是在一个自然资源丰富、人口密度低的时代写作的。在现代，他的处方已成为他所命名的许多物种的死亡保证。由于对传统药物的需求，约有1500种动植物濒临灭绝。种群的数量增加了，但仅限于圈养。结合现代自由市场原则和畜牧技术，李的传统医学教学导致了一些稀有动物的商业化养殖中心的建立。尽管它们的主人经常声称自己是环保主义者，但大多数设施是密集式牲畜饲养场。
Comments