Giant Panda no longer an endangered species
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Other countries can definitely share the blame, but I would imagine China would be more sensitive to the issue since they have their own endangered species that we all celebrate.
The Chinese government is loath to reverse these beliefs, as it would mean investing a lot more money in real western medicine. In fact, Mao originally put forth TCM as a distraction from a serious lack of real medical resources in the 50s, from wiki:
In 1950, Chairman Mao Zedong made a speech in support of traditional Chinese medicine which was influenced by political necessity.[11] Zedong believed he and the Chinese Communist Party should promote traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) but he did not personally believe in TCM and he didn't use it.[11] In 1952, the president of the Chinese Medical Association said that, "This One Medicine, will possess a basis in modern natural sciences, will have absorbed the ancient and the new, the Chinese and the foreign, all medical achievements—and will be China’s New Medicine!"[11]
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
And more generally it could raise "what else that the government has been assuring us for the last X decades might also be wrong?" thoughts in the potentially-cynical-but-not-yet-actively-so amongst the general population.
The Chinese government has stopped harmful Chinese traditions on a number occasions without significant backlash. Especially anything that challenged their control. Just look at the suppression of religions, ethnic cultures, and many other traditions throughout China:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/3948-commentary-6-on-how-the...
The rhino isn't as cute as the panda.
When you have malaria, AIDS, racial wars, budget problems etc. it's kind of hard to prioritize endangered species.
As long as Rhino horn trade is not a mayor income source for the government then how much does it cost them to introduce harsh punishments for this?
China was also very poor when they started implementing policies to save the Panda bear. It's not that long ago that millions of Chinese starved to death, that's how poor they were back then.
Example source: https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/the_vi...
"Rhino horn acquisition in China is mostly reported for its investment value"
"The art and antiques market is a new threat to rhino conservation"
"Chinese rhino horn auction records (n = 7,042, 2000–2011) showed a significant positive correlation between the volume of rhino horn auctioned in China and the number of rhinos poached in South Africa"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320716...
Let me explain: What BBC failed to mention is that Chinese government put death penalty[1] on Panda poachers. This is one of measures taken by government among others. It could be a human right's violation but it's not significant enough so BBC can choose to be blind. However to execute anybody who dare to buy or sell Panda skin, it's going too far. Chinese government would not do that other than threatening to do so.Killing drug dealer is acceptable although controversial, killing drug consumer is not acceptable.
Go back to Panda vs Rhino: China have no control over poachers. Punishment on illegal trade alone is not effective enough.
That is not to say that I approve of drug abuse, but everyone can only be held accountable for his own actions, not for the actions of others.
It would be something different if the Chinese government actively encouraged import of Rhino parts, but they don't allow this as far as I know.
Once the rockets are up / who cares where they come down, / „That's not my department“, / says Wernher von Braun.
You kill the Rhino, you are responsible for killing the Rhino.
You buy Rhino horn, you are responsible for buying illegal goods and creating demand. (which is not equal to actually killing a Rhino or a human being!)
You fail as a government to prevent import of illegal goods, you are responsible for not controlling imports with 100% accuracy.
You tell me if you know of any country in the world that is capable of preventing imports of highly sought after illegal goods to a degree that puts producers of these illegal goods out of business.
If that was possible there would not be any illegal drugs in the West.
> everyone can only be held accountable for his own actions, not for the actions of others.
is very broad, and isn't at all supported by just one example of drug user/cartel, because there are plenty of other cases where that's not true.
Another one:
If you're a mob boss and you tell your henchmen to murder someone, you're also on the line. That's a pretty direct one. But you could also argue that the witness who accepted a bribe to lie for the mafia is guilty of something, as may be the guy who stocked the weapons that day, or their getaway driver.
And at least legally, in the US, if your buddy is robbing the bank and you're his getaway driver, and he kills a police officer before dying himself, you're now on the line for murdering that police officer.
I think there's really a sliding scale of complicitness which makes it pretty complex.
If you buy an illegaly obtained human heart, are you not culpable for the death of the former owner?
If you hire a mercenary to obtaining a human heart, are you completely free from all blame for the subsequent murder?
If I were to look at the isolated action of buying Rhino horn, I could easily argue that no harm is done by trading Rhino horn that has already been cut off a Rhino. But that's not what happens in his argument: He notes that the isolated action of Rhino horn buying is in fact illegal, but ignores that the origin of this rule directly contradicts his moral reasoning.
I just say it is a different thing if you kill a Rhino yourself (or order someone to kill one for you) than walking down a market in Hong Kong, seeing some Rhino horn for sale and then deciding to buy it.
Buying the Rhino horn is not legal in any civilised place (because it most likely comes from illegal sources), but the punishment is also not the same one that you would get for walking into your nearest zoo and killing a Rhino yourself, and rightly so.
Not if you do not know that the person has been killed for you to receive the heart or even worse, you ordered someone directly to kill someone. There are plenty of people dying in accidents or of natural causes and some do buy organs (usually bribing doctors) to get ahead in donor waiting lists.
You are culpable for bribing someone and risking that someone might have been killed for the product (at least if you didn't make sure where it came from), thus it is illegal. But you wont be charged with murder.
> If you hire a mercenary to obtaining a human heart, are you completely free from all blame for the subsequent murder?
Well of course you are directly to blame for any of these murders. You ordered it so there's not much of a difference between killing the person yourself and paying someone to do it for you.
But I'm not 100% sure about the last point, never had to deal with assassinations so I never felt the need to research it.
You're assuming I make China solely responsible for this. I do not. However it would be nice for all parties who are able to reduce impact, to do so within the gamut of their responsibility and influence. Africa must take responsibility for managing poachers and local smuggling networks, and other countries can work to reduce demand. China has an enormous populace so has a massive influence over demand. Pressure must be applied to all points of the problem.
Panel on Conservation through Technology, New Harvest Conference.
[2] www.pembient.com, http://twitter.com/pembient; Biotech Startup.
it annoys me that some western people are so apt to play the game of blaming China, just to take the moral high ground, but not to actually solve problems.
I'm not saying that China is not blamable. it is. but so is any other country, group, even individual. the media bias is just disgusting. can we please try to understand each other and figure out ways to solve problems?
for me, lions being vulnerable instead of endangered doesn't justify trophy hunting. killing for fun is arguably worse than killing for medicine.
in another scenario, dogs are not endangered. do you think it is ok to kill dogs just for fun?
People could just eat rice, but eating cow is much more fun.
So yes, most people are happy to kill for fun.
At least trophy hunting is far more moral.
Killing because eating is fun is different.
But while we're understanding each other, imagine if Africans were a large source of demand for dead Pandas for use in traditional medicine? The emotional response would be off the charts.
The only instance of demand side control I remember actually working was when Greenpeace and the like mass broadcast ads of cute seal pups being clubbed to death but and models wearing fur coats trailing blood etc.
Maybe, the appropriate imagery needs to be found for the causes of Rhinos and drugs by the activists.
Eastern gorilla now critically endangered while giant panda
situation improves
Poaching and black markets are quite effective in dysfunctional states and/or places with questionable ethical bases of cultures in regards to animal exploitation (traditional justifications, deprioritization towards longstanding human issues, rerouting of funding to corrupt officials, etc, etc).
Hopefully Congo and other surrounding countries manages to deal with this problem. Gorillas are some of the most interesting and intelligent animals on the planet and heavily relevant to us understanding our own human history.
Maybe there aren't many people like Jane Goodall left with influence in the local governments to protect them like in the old British colonial days. I remember reading how she married a local politician who invested quite a bit in creating large Gorilla habitats.
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/7E06/production...
I think we've profoundly failed as a species. Apart from bringing almost all living things on the brink of extinction, and nudge about every stable ecosystem that was prospering before us, what have we done? What kind of prowess have we achieved? Did we land on another planet yet? Did we built a cohesive hive mind shared between every individuals alive?
Earth doesn't more humans, and if we could shave around 2 or 3 billion right now, that would be alright. Problem is, humans tends to get nervous when you apply natural selection to them. Eating cows? No problem. Getting chased by something with large teeth? Nope nope nope nope.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ee-5lN5oDoQ/Uqx4teGXB0I/AAAAAAAAAd...
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/images/drinking/history-grap...
If that's your idea of 'profoundly failed', I'd love to know what your idea of success is.
You gonna volunteer? Or just round up the others who you deem unworthy?
Was primarily a source of food. Went extinct because preservation was not a priority (or, I assume, farming them since chickens might have been easier).