Wildlife on earth is disappearing.In the last century,Hundreds of weird and wonderful species went the way of the dodo.Today over 20000 more species are risk of dying out,but we simply don't have the time or resources to rescue them all.
It's a tough situation,but not a unique one-military medics,first responders,and ER workers regularly make dicisions like these,and a medical triage-like approach could help us decide which species to save first.
For example,we could prioritize those who need help stat!like the last 60 wild Javan rhinos teetering on the edge of extinction.Alternatively,we could take a kind of save-the -president-first approach and focus on species vital to entire ecosystems,like mangroves,whose groves support over a thousand species or otters,whose urchin-eating keeps kelp forests healthy.
例如 我们可以先救那些情况迫在眉睫的动物！比如现在仅存60只，身处灭绝边缘的爪哇犀牛。或者 我们可以采取先救统帅的策略。先救那些对生态系统影响重大的物种，例如红树林 它可以供养超过千种生物以及水獭，而且还能保护海草林不被海胆吃光。
Or,we could prioritize patients that have the bext and cheapest chance of long term survival;New Zealand's Maud Island frogs,for example,could be rescued from their invasive nemeses for the cost of keeping a panda alive in captivity for about half a year.But so far,conservation decisions haven't been so calculated.
又或者 我们可以排个先后顺序。先救那些花一点点钱就能长期存活的物种；例如 新西兰的莫德岛青蛙，将他们从入侵敌人的手中救下来所需费用 仅为圈养一只熊猫半年的花费。但是目前 保护决策还缺乏计划性。
For instance,giant pandas aren't nearly as rare as Javan rhinos or as critical to their ecosystems as otters and mangroves.Plus,they're such reluctant breeders and their bamboo forests are so fragmented that saving them has already required billions of dollars and may mean keeping the species on permanent life support.
例如 熊猫的濒危程度就不及爪哇犀牛，而它对生态系统的贡献也不如水獭和红树林。另外 它们繁殖力低，它们的竹林又分散，拯救它们需要数以亿计的费用，这笔钱足以让许多其他物种长久地生存下去。
And yet these fuzzy-wuzzy bundles of cuteness pull at our heartstrings-and our wallets.As the literal faces of conservation,pandas pull in big bucks for wildlife protection.And they do share-a little.Money raised by the World Wildlife Fund does go to dozens of conservation projects,but the majority of campaigns fronted by pandas or other charismatic creatures are solely devoted to saving their symbolic species.
What's more,keeping the spotlight focused on the plight of a few celebrities means the demise of species with homelier faces-or no faces at all...you've probably never seen a campaign to save the stinking cedar or the pygmy hog-sucking louse.But unlike the celebrities,underdog species like these are often ideal triage candidates:they can be simpler to resuscitate,less expensive to protect,and vital to their ecosystems-their only flaw is inferior cuteness.
此外 将聚光灯聚集在少数特定的物种身上，意味着无视其他普通物种的死亡。。。你大概从没见过，拯救美洲榧或是猪虱的行动。与聚光灯下的名流不同，这些无名物种往往才是理想的救援对象；它们可以很快恢复生机 救援花费少，对生态系统贡献大，唯一的缺点就是长得不够可爱。
Should we really let appearances decide who live and who dies,or should we take a more rational approach?The tradeoff is this:thinking rationally when it comes to saving species may mean asking ourselves whether a world without pandas issomething we can bear.
所以 我们真的要通过脸蛋来决定物种的死活吗？还是应该更理性地考虑这个问题？权衡之法就是；在拯救物种时理性地思考 扪心自问。一个没有熊猫的世界会让你无法忍受吗？