Good move, but that gives those traders about 12 months to "kick up the volume" of ivory traded.
After that, it becomes a typical black market affair, kinda like trade in stolen art works.
After that, it becomes a typical black market affair, kinda like trade in stolen art works.
My guess is that parent is obliquely referring to that phenomenon.
In my chosen domain of rhinos, it is starting to look as though the public awareness campaigns run from 2008 to 2014 very well could've accidently spread the message that rhino horn is rare, risky, and desirable.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/synthe...
What is your response to this? I really want to save rhinos too, and I'm not sure how to help. I've donated to both of those organisations, and I kind of want to figure out how convince Vietnam that rhino horns absolutely do not cure cancer. Why do you think synthetic horns will work instead?
For instance, from 2008 to 2014 they pushed the message that rhino horn was being used for medicinal purposes. As early as 2012, some intrepid investigators started to make the case that that wasn't what was driving the poaching crisis. There is now a growing consensus that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was a red herring all along [1, 2].
I believe they're wrong about biofabricated horn too. If you're interested, you can read my rebuttal to their objections here:
https://sosv.com/why-pembient-is-confident-in-synthetic-rhin...
TL;DR: We have Nobel Prize-winning theory (Akerlof, 2001) underlying our proposed intervention.
[1] https://twitter.com/savetherhino/status/798885174520016896
[2] https://wildlifejustice.org/cn/overlooked-rhino-horn-demand-...
The whole anti-littering campaign story is interesting. Apparently the original campaign that everyone (at least everyone over a certain age) remembers with the crying "Indian" (who was actually an Italian-American actor) wasn't really all that effective.
One of the later campaigns that were considered more effective included "Don't Mess with Texas" which featured actors like Chuck Norris.
What a meaningless statement - that is as subjective as can be.
Shark fin is populated almost everywhere as some kind of unbelievable delicacy, only the most previleged individuals can afford them.
Such illusion is portraited in books, films, casual chats, etc. This type of mysterious image of a thing, which actually is neither delicious nor highly nutritious, makes any banning of such thing impossible. Bescause everyone is convinced that it is that good, including those who are in charge of making the decision.
It was only after many years of gradual shift in public perception that makes the eventual tide turn happens. Now most people would agree that shark fin is expensive, because they are from sharks, not because they are incredibly delicious.
When I said "not tasty at all", that definitely is subjective. But at the same time it is reprentative. Because shark fin tastes just like "fen si", with fishy scent. "Fen si" is something that every Chinese eat daily. That is quite different from what one would expect from the images of popular sources. If something just tastes like another thing that one eats daily, does that make it a delicacy at all?!