The cat brought the mouse to its owner. Is this a way of repaying the favor? The truth is different from what you think!

Whenever an earthquake occurs, there are always many news reports about "animals repaying kindness" and "animals saving their masters" on the Internet. In fact, the seismology and zoology communities have long reached a consensus that animals cannot predict earthquakes.

From the perspective of animal behavior, some individuals, such as dogs or cats that bring mice to their owners, may be driven by animal instincts and do things that appear to be "protecting their owners" or "protecting humans." These situations actually have their own logic of animal behavior and are not suitable for excessive interpretation.

Image source: TikTok screenshot

Misunderstandings about some animal behaviors

In recent years, thanks to the attention of the national and international communities, wildlife protection has gradually entered the public eye. With the rise of online media and social platforms, many animal images such as giant pandas, takins, caracals, snow leopards, and wild elephants have become "traffic stars" and have received a lot of attention and comments from netizens.

However, we often see some opinions and public opinions that deviate from the 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 "human-like" and use anthropomorphic emotional descriptions, hoping to "awaken mankind's conscience and stop slaughtering these animals"; in recent years, there have been widely circulated "environmental protection" articles that interpret some wild animal deaths as animals "suicide" on their own due to a deteriorating natural environment; in addition, the naming of giant pandas is to give them human emotions to a certain extent, and dressing pets in clothes and shoes is actually not what pets need, but rather humans impose their own ideas on pets, and so on.

Copyright images in the gallery. Reprinting and using them may lead to copyright disputes.

Some people may think that the starting point of such public opinion is good, and it can also promote society's attention to and improvement of the welfare and fate of wild animals, which is understandable.

But is there a potential problem with this? When a wrong argument serves the right intention, how should we view this "magic defeating magic" that some people love to talk about?

I think there are many ways and paths to accomplish something meaningful, but not all methods are correct and not all paths are feasible. Using the wrong method to approach the right goal is likely to be a mistake and will not ultimately achieve the goal. We should not promote environmental protection and wildlife protection in this way.

Why shouldn’t we project human emotions and needs onto animals?

① First, the concern shown by this kind of thinking is often far from the actual needs of animals and may not be beneficial to wild animals.

For example, as a large carnivore that lives alone in the wild, some captive giant panda cubs are misunderstood as "forced separation" on online platforms when they are separated from their mothers' care at the appropriate age. Some members of the public demand that breeding institutions "reunite mother and child", which is obviously contrary to the natural habits of giant pandas.

In addition, the normal body shape of elderly giant pandas was reported as "malnutrition", and necessary and ethical physical examinations were interpreted as giant pandas being "abused". These "concerns" are of no benefit except for bringing negative pressure to the breeding institutions.

Previously, the giant panda "Baoquan" was so thin that his bones were visible, which attracted widespread attention. Later, the China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda responded that the panda was thin because of less hair, and its weight was within the normal range, and it had no health problems. Image source: Screenshot from the Internet

② Secondly, even if such public opinion ultimately advocates the correct approach, its significance is very limited and the side effects are very obvious.

Understanding animals with human thinking and emotions is essentially 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 humans themselves.

For example, domestic cats are popular companion animals, but many breeders believe that a free-range life where they can roam freely outdoors is in line with the welfare of domestic cats. If domestic cats are kept free-range simply based on "fast food" emotional projection, they will cause unmanageable indiscriminate killing and subsequent population decline of local native species, and will also be exposed to various pathogens and other safety hazards that threaten themselves, and even promote the spread of diseases between humans, pets and wild animals, causing endless harm.

When people who like anthropomorphic animals find that their favorites are not "cute" or "spiritual" and even participate in cruel competition for survival, how can they deal with this misplaced love? On the other hand, emotional projection has both positive and negative aspects. Snakes, spiders and other animals are important parts of the ecosystem. However, traditional cultural impressions such as "cold-blooded" and "vicious" often lead social platforms to avoid the release of related popular science content for fear of audience disgust. How can this help protect the complete biodiversity and ecological environment?

Copyright images in the gallery. Reprinting and using them may lead to copyright disputes.

③ Finally, even if projecting emotions onto animals does not cause any practical problems, using erroneous thinking and emotions to make cognition and decisions is not in line with the development trend of human society.

As an intelligent species that has established civilization, aren't we humans conducting scientific exploration and understanding the world because we want to know the true face of the world? The pursuit of truth is the essence and purpose of our wisdom; our society must have the right and ability to face the truth.

Without knowing the truth of things, one will never know when he will do something wrong. Without using correct knowledge and logic to popularize science, we will never know when we will be completely defeated by truly terrible rumors.

This is why it is not appropriate to use rumors to promote the right things: after all, this is not the right way to go and will not achieve our goal of doing everything right. In the real world, there is not just one species to protect, but everything is connected.

When we are lazy on a topic and present simple and wrong logic to others, when simple logic and careless emotions flood the society, we are preparing the best breeding ground for harmful rumors. If we spread rumors, we lose.

In physics class, we learn the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that maintaining an orderly state is bound to consume energy. Distinguishing facts and building a rational society that functions well will never be the easiest way, nor can it be achieved with the simplest emotions - and the simplest and crudest way, which requires the least energy, leads to rumors, chaos, and social degradation.

Doing to nature what we would have nature do to us is far from all we should do; if we value our own emotions and intelligence so much, if we have real respect for the free and wild souls of wild animals, we should do more - at the very least, we should understand the truth instead of blindly projecting our own emotional needs.

What would be more beneficial?

The great zoologist Edward Wilson once wrote a book arguing that humans who come from the natural wilderness have an innate "biophilia." The instinctive love for the lives of wild animals and plants is naturally the necessary foundation for us to protect nature and live in harmony with nature.

However, with this sentiment in mind, scientific investigation and research on wildlife and their environment is the real basis for us to formulate reasonable environmental protection policies and promote effective wildlife protection practices. Thinking and discussing the truth is the only way to make correct judgments, solve problems, and reduce suffering.

Copyright images in the gallery. Reprinting and using them may lead to copyright disputes.

Today, for "Internet celebrity" animals such as giant pandas and snow leopards, the healthy survival of wild populations is still threatened by many issues. Practical problems such as habitat fragmentation and degradation caused by human activities, invasion of territory by livestock and stray animals and even direct attacks, and human-animal conflicts all need the public to have a deeper understanding and promote change.

With objective respect and sincere and rational attention , every kind and responsible citizen does not need short-term anger or blind excitement to like and forward and practice justice. As long as we care about society, the environment and the future of our children and grandchildren, there is no need for wrong emotional projection, and we have all the reasons to protect these beautiful and independent creatures.

As human beings, our greatest gift is rationality, and our responsibility is greater than simple emotional projection. The progress of human civilization must start from every bit of truth and every moment of willingness to think.

Planning and production

This article is a work of Science Popularization China-Starry Sky Project

Produced by: Science Popularization Department of China Association for Science and Technology

Producer｜China Science and Technology Press Co., Ltd., Beijing Zhongke Xinghe Culture Media Co., Ltd.

Author: Lu Ping, Researcher at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Reviewer: Huang Chengming, Researcher at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Planning丨Xu Lai

Editor: Wang Mengru