Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#121

Post by jopsen »

bilekas wrote: post #11

It can be banned, sure, but I don't see the superstitious side of the consumption being curtailed. When you have a market for rare 'natural wondercures' being sought out, it only takes one mutation in a virus to spread on from another mammal to humans, add to that China's population density. A recipe for disaster.

They might be able to limit/reduce the trade. It's seems a bit extreme to outright ban though...

But if China started reducing the market for endangered species that's not so bad.

I'm also guessing that mutation of viruses is a probability game, so reducing the trade might be all it takes to change the probability.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#122

Post by pozdnyshev »

dang wrote: post #119
pozdnyshev wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the CPC's position on climate change to the oval office's, I'll wait.

Please don't use HN for political or ideological flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Do I need to cite my sources? Hardly a flame, more like putting out a flame.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#123

Post by dntbnmpls »

fishmaster wrote: post #110
dntbnmpls wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is endangering animals in other countries. And when it comes to preserving their own wild animals, china is much better at it than europe who wiped out pretty much all their major fauna. The US isn't much better since we pretty much wiped out most of our native wild life.

The chinese and their idiotic traditional 'medicine' are endangering so many animals that it's not even close. They're actively encouraging poaching.

Actually, their traditional medicine probably preserves those wild animals because the chinese need them.

Whereas in the US, we simply exterminated most of the animals because they were considered a nuisance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

There are no more wolverines in the wolverine state. There are no california bears in california. And of course we almost wiped out the american bald eagle.

If china wants to catch up to the US or Europe, they had to do a lot more exterminating.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#125

Post by tomxor »

jopsen wrote: post #121
bilekas wrote: post #11

It can be banned, sure, but I don't see the superstitious side of the consumption being curtailed. When you have a market for rare 'natural wondercures' being sought out, it only takes one mutation in a virus to spread on from another mammal to humans, add to that China's population density. A recipe for disaster.

They might be able to limit/reduce the trade. It's seems a bit extreme to outright ban though... But if China started reducing the market for endangered species that's not so bad. I'm also guessing that mutation of viruses is a probability game, so reducing the trade might be all it takes to change the probability.

> They might be able to limit/reduce the trade. It's seems a bit extreme to outright ban though...

In China, banning == limiting.

_Part_ of the reason there are so many "extreme" laws from western perspective.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#126

Post by nikofeyn »

nate_meurer wrote: post #116

Aside from the disease risk, remember that the Chinese appetite for wild animals as "traditional medicine" is contributing to the disappearance of entire species. Notable and well-publicized examples include tigers and rhinos, but there are many others. Stupid shit like using rhinos horns and tiger genitals as aphrodisiacs are still widely held beliefs in parts of China. Xi Jinping's administration has actually been…

and it's not just china. many other asian countries, such as vietnam, consume illegal animal parts for traditional medicine and enable the trade of such things in china. couple all of that with socioeconomic struggles in africa that creates a willingness and incentive to supply, and you have a problem that won't disappear until the animals disappear.

in half a century, poaching, human encroachment on habitats, and climate change will see many animals (rhinos, tigers, polar pears, certain orca populations, etc.) disappear. humans are not organized enough to stop this.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#127

Post by fishmaster »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #123
fishmaster wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chinese and their idiotic traditional 'medicine' are endangering so many animals that it's not even close. They're actively encouraging poaching.

Actually, their traditional medicine probably preserves those wild animals because the chinese need them. Whereas in the US, we simply exterminated most of the animals because they were considered a nuisance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon There are no more wolverines in the wolverine state. There are no california bears in california. And o…

Sure, if you want to call eradication by brutish poaching 'preserving' then go ahead. I call it what it is.

Also, this whataboutism doesn't help anyone.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#128

Post by jacquesm »

michaelt wrote: post #19
drenginian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think people in China haven’t been scared out of doing risky things like eating wild animals?

bilekas is probably thinking of the trade in things like poached ivory, rhino and tiger parts, where being banned on paper has not eliminated the black market.

A ban on paper facilitates a black market.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#129

Post by Nitramp »

jack_h wrote: post #77
Nitramp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. aka as "the rule of law". From a continental European perspective, the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well, with the president pardoning his friends, or the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing, or elected stat…

I'm not sure how your examples illustrate your point. For instance the power to pardon is defined within the constitution with a singular exception added to it. It doesn't say a president can't pardon their friends. That might be socially unacceptable but it is a power delegated to the president nonetheless. If the constitution made no such mention of that power and the president was pardoning their friends - or inde…

To give an extreme counter-example, imagine you had a constitution that legally gives unlimited supreme powers to a single person (which has happened, e.g. Germany during the Nazi years).

I wouldn't describe that as the rule of law, but rather as despotism. I think you can have a constitutional system that has powers codified that still violate the goals and ideals of the rule of law, without being technically illegal. It's not a black and white thing.

Does that make sense?

Post reply on HN