Published here is Professor Zhao Nanyuan's last article.
In a long article generated on the basis of "Answering the New York Times Reporter's Question", Teacher Zhao sent me the article through the mailbox, hoping that I would forward it widely.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to see the social repercussions generated by this article, and Professor Zhao suddenly had a heart attack and left us... In the blink of an eye, it's been a year.
I have a very strong friendship with Professor Zhao Nanyuan, and I have a completely consistent position in opposing cults and against liars under the banner of special functions, and I have a common language that cannot be spoken endlessly, and I recall the great victories and small victories of those who have passed the hurdles, and I cannot help but sigh and sigh.
Professor Zhao studied for a doctorate in Japanese engineering when he was young, and has been teaching at Tsinghua University since returning to China, he is meticulous in his thinking, profound in thought, widely involved, and has a strong sense of social responsibility. He was easy-going, never put up the shelf of teaching doctoral supervisors, and did not show even the slightest dislike for idle people in society like me who had no background in science and engineering.
Professor Zhao Nanyuan's automation profession I dare not evaluate, in his opposition to pseudoscience, against cults, especially in the last few years before his death, he was a clear and high banner. If you don't believe it, you read this article in response to the New York Times reporter's question, some people are afraid to jump up in anger and shame.
Jump, call, scold, Professor Zhao Nanyuan has no interest in making any rebuttal, he will show a happy expression.
One by one, Sima Nan
After dinner on January 4, 2022, it was written at No. 8, NanluoguXiang, Dongcheng District, Beijing
"Answering a New York Times Reporter's Question on Animal Protection Legislation" Zhao Nanyuan, a professor at Tsinghua University
Thank you Teacher Zhao. The outline of the interview is as follows:
1. The Ministry of Agriculture recently classified dogs as "companion animals" rather than livestock, what do you think about this? Do you agree with this decision?
2. Many animal protectors believe that eating dog meat is not actually a Chinese tradition, and in many parts of the country, eating dog meat has only become a "tradition" in recent decades. How do you respond to this statement?
3. Both Shenzhen and Zhuhai have recently enacted legislation prohibiting the eating of dog meat. Do you agree with this decision? If not, why?
4. Many people believe that the outbreak is due to China's weak regulation of the consumption of wild animals, so China has received a lot of attention on this matter recently. Do you think China needs to strengthen its regulation of the wildlife industry?
5. Many animal protectors have been demanding the passage of laws that prevent cruelty to animals. Do you agree? If not, why?
6. There have been more and more people who have owned dogs in China in recent years, but eating dog meat is not popular in every place. Do you think public opinion is gradually shifting against eating dog meat? If so, why? If not, why?
7. What is your position at the University (what would you like us to call you in the article)?
Qin Ying Amy Qin
This outline is rich in content, but it is probably unconvincing to take a stand on the facts, so my answer begins with the final "why" of each question.
As long as the "why" is clear, the conclusion will be naturally drawn. First, let's discuss a problem that everyone is very unfamiliar with: moral hazard.
Anti-science people have a mantra: science is a double-edged sword. They don't know that in history, Frankenstein has only been seen in literary works, and none of them have appeared in reality. The double-edged sword of morality can really take lives.
In ancient and modern China and abroad, there are countless catastrophes caused by moral rampage. Qian Zhongshu has a wonderful summary of this: "The great evils in the world, the great cruelty - there is no greater evil than cruelty - are mostly done by people with real moral ideals." ...... God wants to punish mankind, sometimes in a famine year, sometimes in a plague or war, sometimes in the production of a moralist with ideals so noble that ordinary people cannot achieve them, accompanied by self-confidence and incitement proportional to his ideals, merging into unconscious pride. (Qian Zhongshu, "Written on the Side of Life", Liaoning People's Publishing House, Liaohai Publishing House, 2000.4.p58)
This is because morality often sees itself as the ultimate arbiter (pride) of good and evil, thus completely losing the mechanism of error correction and constituting the greatest moral hazard. Immoral bad people can only do small bad things; in the name of morality, they can cause large-scale catastrophe.
Why is there moral hazard? The key lies in the immaturity of Western ethics. Originally, ethics is the study of the reasons for the existence of morality, and it is necessary to judge whether a certain moral code is right or wrong. Immature ethics, on the other hand, has lost its function and cannot distinguish which morals will cause havoc. The basis of Chinese ethics is humanistic, while the West is theological, which is why Western ethics is difficult to mature.
Fundamentally, there are fundamental differences in the chinese and Western views of God. The difference is that China believes that God is the means and man is the end, while the West believes that man is the means and God is the end. Newton wrote The Principles to prove the greatness of God. And the Chinese gods are at the service of mankind. Pangu opened up the world, Nuwa created people, refining stones to supplement the heavens, The Fu ren clan invented fire, There was the Chao clan invented to build a house, Shennong clan invented agriculture, Cangjie made characters, Dayu Zhishui... In short, only those who contribute to mankind can be canonized. Like God, he was dissatisfied with mankind and drowned, leaving only Noah's family, and this kind of bad guy is not qualified to be a god in China.
The same is true of the attitude toward morality, Chinese ethics is literally humanistic, "Lun" refers to interpersonal relations, and ethics refers to the study of the truth of interpersonal relations. So Confucius's stables caught fire, and Confucius asked, "Hurt people?" ", don't ask the horse. The relationship between man and animal is not an ethical matter and has nothing to do with morality. Those who record history deliberately emphasize "not asking horses" in order to highlight the spirit of humanism.
Western Ethics have no humanistic meaning, their morality itself is an end, not to serve the interests of people, Western religion believes that sexual behavior is god prescribed to give birth to children, so all sexual acts that are not in accordance with God's regulations are immoral, such as masturbation, contraception, abortion, homosexuality are immoral, so that abortion and LGBT have become the source of social strife, and these things are not moral issues in China's humanistic moral system, and will not become the focus of controversy. When the excessive expansion of religion endangered society, There were several anti-Buddhist movements in China, and there was no religious war or theocratic regime in Chinese history, and the human nature was always greater than the divine nature. Therefore, adhering to the principles of humanistic ethics can prevent morality from infringing on people's interests and avoid moral hazard.
Animal protectionism is a typical example of a wrong moral code, the fault is that it violates the principle of humanism, and the animal protection legislation is a serious violation of human rights. Historically, the first country to legislate on animal protection was Nazi Germany, and Hitler and his associates were extreme animal protectionists.
Of course, because human nonsense is unscientific, the fallacy of animal protectionism is not because it is Hitler's claim, but because it has two most basic fallacies in values:
The first is that there is no distinction between man and animal, and the status of animals is raised to the same status as that of man. Status is a relative thing, and to elevate the status of animals is to degrade the status of man and violate the principles of humanism.
The second is the reversal of killing, which regards animal cruelty as a more serious crime than killing animals. In the law of any country in the world, the death penalty is the highest punishment, and other punishments (one of ill-treatment) are lower than the death penalty. This is not only the consensus of human society, but also the law of nature. Animals evolved the ability to feel pain because it reduced animal mortality, otherwise this ability would not have been able to arise and survive in evolution. That is, the value of avoiding death is far greater than the value of reducing suffering.
Hitler's misvalue caused a catastrophe for mankind. Because there is no distinction between man and animal, killing people is the same as killing pigs, without any psychological burden. And the killing was reversed, so that they designed a very "humane" gas chamber, so that the slain people thought that they were going to take a bath, the pain of being killed was as short as possible, so that the Nazis felt that the merit was complete. Due to the unremitting struggle of the Jews, the Nazi Holocaust was fully denied by history, and many politicians knelt down to repent. And the same perverse values have produced animal protectionism that has spread to the detriment of the world. People have not yet recognized the cult nature of animal protectionism and are not vigilant about it.
Many people don't understand why animal protectionism is a cult, but here's a simple way to identify it: any value, ideology, if not based on humanism, is a religion.
It can be seen from this that science is not a religion, communism is not a religion, and Chinese folk beliefs are not religions. Although folk beliefs have gods, but the relationship between man and god is equal, Chinese to pray to God and worship Buddha, pay attention to the procedure of making wishes and returning wishes, ask for what to the gods (such as fox immortals, Mazu, Guan Gong, land lords, etc.), make a wish first (quotation), if you want to achieve it, then return the wish (payment), here people are Party A, God is Party B, people use the way of first shipping and then paying to buy God's services, in line with the principle of humanism.
There is also a simple way to identify normal religions and cults: the doctrines of normal religions only restrict the followers of their own religions, while cults try to restrain unbelievers with their own religious doctrines, deprive others of their freedom, and violate human rights. Take eating dog meat, if the animal protection person just does not eat dog meat themselves, then there is no problem, everyone has the right to decide what they eat or not to eat, exercise the basic human right to choose food, if this choice is not based on taste and hobbies but animal protectionism, it is also a normal religious behavior. However, if animal protectionists interfere with others' eating of dog meat, they will infringe on others' right to choose food and constitute a cult behavior. As for the further legislation prohibiting the eating of dog meat, it is to impose its own doctrine on the whole people and implement partial theocracy, which violates the basic principle of the separation of church and state in modern countries.
Animal protectionism is therefore a cult founded by Hitler. The animal protection cult spread throughout the world, causing great losses to society. They went around sabotaging farming and "liberating" minks from killing chickens from large numbers of farms. The use of large chicken coops was imposed, resulting in higher costs and higher prices for eggs. Oppose eating chicken and harassing restaurants, picking quarrels and provoking trouble everywhere, and causing trouble. What is even more heinous is that these people are extremely hostile to science and aim their spearhead at animal experiments, at the beginning of this century, Britain is preparing to build a high-level animal experiment center, and they are threatened by the animal protection cult, they threaten to blow up the building, then Prime Minister Blair is very determined, threatening to use the army to protect, but in the end this matter was still stirred up. Today, many experimental animals can no longer survive abroad, for example, monkeys can only be raised in China, and foreigners can only come to China to buy monkeys or go to China to do experiments. China has become the last bastion of science, and it must not be allowed to be broken by the animal protection cult.
[Professor Zhao Nanyuan of Tsinghua University answered a new York Times reporter's question] No. 2
By figuring out the nature of the evil cult forces of animal protectionism, on this basis, we can answer the questions in the interview outline.
It's a bizarre thing. According to the common sense of taxonomy, "companion animals" are a category of animal uses, and their equal counterparts should be "service animals", "food animals", etc., while poultry and domestic animals are the category of animal survival resources, and their counterparts are wild animals. Poultry refers to birds raised by humans, and domestic animals refer to mammals raised. This is all a level higher than classification by use. Categorized by use in the next layer, it is subordinate to the survival resource category. Companion animals are necessarily raised animals, and animals are difficult to become companions in the wild. So dogs are a domestic animal, there is no doubt about that.
The Ministry of Agriculture's low-level mistakes are not momentary mistakes, but sinister intentions. The term "companion animal" has its special meaning, and is used to discuss that dog meat should not be eaten, so the classification of "companion animals" is a casual chess piece, for the future ban on dog meat layout. In the context of Chinese-based culture, the expansion of Hitler's cult was not easy, and they used the method of arching the sun, boiling frogs in warm water, and thinly sliced sausages in an attempt to unknowingly sell cult goods.
But the logic that "companion animals" cannot be eaten is difficult to establish. The most popular partner is not a dog but a person, and even if it is a dog owner, his spouse and family are more intimate partners than dogs. So do we have legislation prohibiting cannibalism? No. You go to the Chinese medicine shop and you can buy the "Purple River Car". This is a human flesh product like a fake exchange. So there is no contradiction between partnering and eating meat. There is no justification for using the name "companion animal" to oppose eating dog meat.
In fact, from the original intention of animal protection, eating dog meat is not a problem. Developed countries capture wild dogs, no one wants to execute them, whether the dead dogs are burned and buried or eaten, there is no difference for dogs, does not affect any rights and welfare of animals. The reason for making a big fuss about eating dog meat is that the drunkard does not mean to drink, and the purpose is not to protect animals, but to oppose China and smear China. Those who make trouble at the dog meat festival have foreign black hands behind them. This small action by the Ministry of Agriculture has exposed the infiltration of anti-Chinese elements into China's state organs, and this is something worthy of attention.
The use of animals against China has a long history, and the opposition to eating shark fin is another example. In fact, the ecological position of tuna is similar to that of sharks, more endangered than sharks, but the opposition to eating tuna is not obvious, the reason is that it is mainly Westerners and Japanese people who eat tuna and the main Chinese who eat shark fin, the so-called anti-shark fin protection ecology is just an excuse, the real purpose is still anti-China.
I have never heard such a statement in China, and to say it in China would seem extremely ignorant and be ridiculed. There are many articles about the long history of eating dog meat, and I won't say much about it here. Speaking of only one person, Liu Bang's general Fan Duo was a dog meat seller, and this person lived before the epoch, more than two thousand years ago. Of course, how long the history of eating dog meat does not affect the absurdity of banning dog meat, after all, prohibiting others from eating anything is a violation of human rights, and it is not right to prohibit eating stinky tofu.
Of course, I disagree, this legislation, like the classification of the Ministry of Agriculture, is to stuff Hitler's cult's bootleg goods into the bill banning the eating of wild animals. Dogs are obviously not wild animals, and the inclusion of the ban on dog meat into the bill to ban the eating of wild animals is completely indiscriminate. Some people in Shenzhen and Zhuhai regard the dross of Hong Kong as a yardstick, and their thinking is confused and urgently needs to be corrected.
Because Hitler's cult is not on the table in China, where humanism is the basis of culture, it often uses local small powers to stuff smuggled goods, for example, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's prohibition of animal performances is also a typical example of smuggling goods, animal performances were not within the scope of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, but individual cultists had some power and came to take advantage of the opportunity.
Banning dog meat is not only a human rights violation for diners, it also endangers the interests of all. Eating dog meat not only satisfies people's appetites, but also has an important positive externality.
Indians do not eat dog meat, and as many as 30,000 people die of rabies every year, which is more than ten times or even dozens of times that of China. It can be said that eating dog meat saves the lives of thousands of people in China every year, which is immeasurable. China's police force is insufficient, and it is difficult to rely on the police to hunt and kill wild dogs for a long time, and eating dog meat just solves this problem. Therefore, not only should the eating of dog meat not be prohibited, but it should also be vigorously promoted.
There is no scientific basis for this understanding. There is no scientific conclusion about the intermediate host of the new crown virus, nor is there any epidemiological evidence that what animals are eaten will infect the new crown virus, and the new crown virus will not be transmitted through the digestive tract. It is very hasty to take measures based on conjecture alone, and the hasty ban on the consumption of wild animals is a great blow to the newborn breeding industry (such as bamboo rats), causing unnecessary economic losses and undermining poverty alleviation efforts. Viruses from nature are more likely to enter human society through poultry and livestock, after all, these animals have much more contact with people, smallpox and measles come from cattle, bird flu is transmitted to humans by wild birds through poultry, and MERS is also transmitted to humans through camels. Focusing on wild animals is a mistake in direction, and it has recently been found that cats, dogs and mink can be infected with the new crown virus, which is a research direction worthy of attention. All measures should be based on scientific conclusions, which is a serious attitude.
The so-called "prevention of cruelty to animals" is a pseudo-issue. Lao Tzu said: "The heavens and the earth are not benevolent, and all things are dogs." "Nature has never been warm to animals. Using the theory of evolution (derived from Malthusian demography) it can be simply calculated that the high birth rate and high mortality rate of wild animals in nature are the norm. Human-farmed animals, the mortality rate is much lower than that of wild animals in nature, the living conditions are much better than the wild state, otherwise it is not economically cost-effective, which is why agriculture and animal husbandry can replace hunting and gathering. Nature is far more cruel than humans are to animals.
I've seen videos of fur animals being "brutally" slaughtered by animal protectors, where the slaughter process is the same as what textbooks teach, and I can't imagine what could be more humane than textbook methods, and animal protectors couldn't provide it. "Cruelty" does not bring any benefit to humans, and there is no reason for farmers to deliberately treat animals cruelly. Very few sadists exist, and whether or not these people are mentally ill requires medical judgment, and patients should be taken to hospitals rather than courts.
To reiterate, "benevolent people love people" does not include animals, morality only deals with interpersonal relationships, and how people treat animals does not fall within the scope of moral jurisdiction, of course, there is no need for legal questioning (law is the bottom line of morality). So "calling for the adoption of a law to prevent cruelty to animals" is absurd, and there is no reason to use the law to force everyone to accept Hitler's murderous and inverted values.
First, there is no reason to think that all dog owners are against eating dog meat, and secondly, there will never be more dog owners than people who don't, and the shift in public opinion is mainly to influence public opinion, and there are some people in the media who are poisoned by Hitler's values, and the ideas of these people need to be reversed by disinfection.
Your question involves an interesting question: Is everything possible to be decided by democratic voting?
Obviously not, court decisions are based on evidence, not public voting. One of the reasons why science is more reliable than political is that science speaks on evidence, regardless of the number of people. Someone asked Einstein: There are more than a hundred scientists who oppose your theory, what do you think? Albert Einstein said: If I'm really wrong, it's enough to have one person who opposes it.
Someone told me during the Cultural Revolution that a university was criticizing a professor who said he was going to use mathematical methods to prove the necessity of party leadership.
In your Western language, this is to prove that "dictatorship" is superior to "democracy." This question aroused great interest in me, but he did not tell me who the professor was and could not ask him for advice.
Fifty years later, I realized this mathematical proof myself, and with just one sentence: "The Nash equilibrium point does not coincide with the global optimal point." "Nash equilibrium is the solution to the problem of game theory, and democracy is actually a multiplayer game process that ends in a Nash equilibrium point, which is never optimal. So democracy is doomed to a no-brainer ending.
Of course, dictatorship is only possible to achieve the optimal, not guarantee the optimal, how to achieve the optimal is a more complex problem, here will not be discussed in detail.
I have been retired for many years, there is no position, only the title, my title is "professor", plus the unit, called "professor of Tsinghua University".
postscript:
Write a little longer, and it is estimated that you will take a sentence or two from it and put it into your article.
If the full translation is published, it is estimated that you will be fired or the New York Times will be shut down.
Because there are too many politically incorrect views in it.
I wrote these words only to play a straightforward way, and I did not intend to show them to Americans. The red neck is definitely not understood, even if it is an expert scholar and professor, it may not be able to understand.
It's not that my views are so profound and difficult to understand, it's that values are often hidden in the subconscious and difficult to reflect. Especially those who believe in religion, they regard doctrine as truth, and it is difficult to change it with rational discussion.
Values seem illusory to talk about, and in practice they can determine the lives of millions of people. According to U.S. experts, the number of deaths in the United States in the new crown epidemic is 100 times that of China in terms of population proportions, and this is the role of values. China is a humanism that puts people first and lives at stake, and dares to temporarily stop economic activities and lock down the city. The United States is the economic priority of theism (the god of capitalism is money) and delays the necessary measures to cause havoc. Chinese respect for science, experts say the city should be locked down, and the leaders ordered it within hours to take responsibility for themselves. The United States is the commander-in-chief of politics, and Fauci is like an angry little daughter-in-law who does not dare to make direct suggestions. Americans are afraid to analyze these reasons, although it is not difficult to analyze at all. They are all theocratics, and democracy and freedom are their gods, and even if they lose their lives, they cannot blaspheme the gods. Speaking of freedom, he thought of Sun Dacang, who said that Chinese is not too little freedom, but too much freedom. If you think about it, China's freedom of speech far exceeds that of the United States, and the sword of Damocles in the United States McCarthyism will fall at any time.
I wrote this article for Chinese, and although the cultists will jump in anger and scold, I have many supporters, and I am satisfied that I can provide some supporting materials for the debate for the supporters.