Sociology, while seemingly niche compared to disciplines like physics or chemistry, is a fundamental aspect of life. For instance, in society, what influences us? What allows us to influence others? These are core questions within the realm of sociology. This is human society—but what happens if we extend this scope to nature? Indeed, there is such a field as environmental sociology. On a more detailed level, what competitive, dependent, or interactive relationships exist between humans and animals?
To start, we must clarify a fundamental point: survival is the highest priority for all animals. Reproduction is their primary goal. Only by understanding this can we better grasp subsequent phenomena.
The animal kingdom also has its social dynamics, often exemplified by intraspecific competition. For instance, two male birds may fight over a female bird. However, the interplay between humans and animals is even more critical. Many people assume that humans primarily affect animals, which is true, but it’s essential to note that humans often influence animals at the species level. Broadening our perspective beyond a single species, humans impact wildlife largely because their advancements consume more resources, thereby reducing those available for animals. Take China as an example: over the past decades, its population has grown substantially, resulting in a surge in resource demand. For animals, dwindling resources and deteriorating habitats are significant challenges. Species extinction typically stems from two causes: (1) specific human demands, such as for food or medicinal purposes, and (2) an inability to adapt to ecological changes. Ultimately, the animals we see today are the most adaptable species. As humans increasingly claim resources, only the strongest and most adaptable species will persist. While species richness will decline, this trend might not be evident in sheer numbers of certain animals. Cockroaches, for example, have existed since the time of the dinosaurs and continue to thrive. Environmental changes profoundly impact overall biodiversity. This is an unfortunate yet inevitable reality of the animal kingdom.
Now, what about the influence of animals on humans? A well-known example is locust plagues. During China's so-called "three years of natural disasters," locust outbreaks played a role. Another example stems from the 1990s, when central China experienced severe flooding. In its aftermath, people recognized the dangers of deforestation and began large-scale tree planting efforts. To expedite reforestation, airplanes were used to disperse fast-growing tree seeds. However, prioritizing rapid growth without considering biodiversity proved counterproductive. Such monocultures created ideal conditions for pests to thrive, as they could consume these trees unimpeded by natural predators.
One might ask: "Why don’t birds settle in such areas, given the abundance of food?" Often, they don’t. For instance, consider a pest that resides in trees and bores into trunks and branches, with woodpeckers as its natural predator. Woodpeckers commonly nest in tree cavities. If the planted trees are too young and lack hollows, woodpeckers won’t settle there, even if they hunt in the area. Since the "forest" spans a vast area, woodpeckers are unlikely to eliminate the pests entirely. This is a simplified example, but the underlying principle applies broadly.
This brings to mind the recent wildfire on Chongqing’s Jinyun Mountain. The fire was extensive, destroying a richly biodiverse forest. How should we approach recovery? Reforestation is necessary, but the methods employed are crucial. If we merely prioritize fast-growing trees, we risk repeating the issues described above. On the other hand, natural regeneration is a slow process. Balancing these two approaches is a question for governments and environmental enthusiasts to ponder.
such conroversial view is a picture I once took, when deers and fences together came into view. Being a misfortune for both animals and human beings, it seems to be a must.
