Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[Deleted member 13312]

Or, the much greater efforts needed to acquire illegal animal products may end up causing the people that used to consume them to give up due to the extra hassle and cost and work needed to acquire it compared to before, not to mention the risk of consequences being judged as not worth whatever tiny gain it is to seek to acquire and consume them... leading to an overall massive net reduction of the consumption of these animal products in the first place.


Correct me if you're wrong, but the impression I get from you is that you believe the people who currently consume these animal products do so out of some kind of strong alignment or commitment to that culture or identity? If so, then I would argue that consumption of those animal products is a choice as a result of societal shaping/education (and lack of societal shaping/education) as well as the access and lack of access of other more normal staple meat products which in turn stem from past poverty.

I do not believe there is anywhere near that level of "commitment" in the vast majority of people who consume those animal products nor is it a particularly central part of their identity.

What you say may be true, but the opposite of that is just as likely to happen. I will also add in social status to the reason of wildlife consumption and judging by how people continue to eat them even though other types of meat are readily available this goes beyond a typical reason of simply poverty or social issues. Looking at the level of wealth and sophistication in Wuhan points to exotic wildlife being more a product of wealth.
At this point it is more correct to say that while a vast majority does not have the level of "commitment" that you say, the small core group has both the means and the drive. This type of people are the most likely to create a backlash in the face of an abrupt ban.
And I would like to take this time to point out that the different level of wild life trade fluctuates wildly between regions, in Beijing the percentage of people who ate wildlife meat is 5%, in Shanghai it is 13% and these wildlife meats are mostly from ostriches, kangaroos and deer which are farmed (the more "common" wildlife if there is such a word for that) while in Guangzhou it is 83%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So China has to be very careful in contemplating a blanket ban. This is also with the consideration of how easy it is to catch certain species which are endemic to the region.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

@Viktor Jav

Just look at what the coronavirus has caused, it's a lot more damaging. There will be payoff also arising from the ban.

Look at what alcohol and cigarettes are doing to China's economy for scale and one really wonders why China does not ban them as well.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Look at what alcohol and cigarettes are doing to China's economy for scale and one really wonders why China does not ban them as well.

there're things that money can't buy, one of them is prestige

 

[broadsword]

Look at what alcohol and cigarettes are doing to China's economy for scale and one really wonders why China does not ban them as well.

Why ban them when they are not causing any epidemic?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Why ban them when they are not causing any epidemic?

Maybe because they are killing more people per year than any epidemic could ?

 

[broadsword]

Maybe because they are killing more people per year than any epidemic could ?

Maybe because no nation has done it yet? Maybe because the average smoker still live to their old age, lesser than non-smokers by maybe a decade, giving them lots of time to finish their job, dinner, write their wills and say goodbye?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Maybe because no nation has done it yet? Maybe because the average smoker still live to their old age, lesser than non-smokers by maybe a decade, giving them lots of time to finish their job, dinner, write their wills and say goodbye?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"n 2010, smoking caused nearly 1 million (840 000 male, 130 000 female) deaths in China" , so just because something kills people slowly then it's fine even though it kills way way more people per year and cost the economy way way much ? Wow that is some fine standards for yah.

And if China is going to take the first step of completely banning wildlife products ( a move which also have no precedents in the modern world uptill now) then it damn well can consider a ban on the no.1 health bane in the world.

But I suppose it is always easier focus one a couple hundred deaths because of infected meat rather then the hundreds of thousands of deaths by a small puff of smoke.

 

[Jura The idiot]

one of the problems with banning tobacco would a dent in the government's then-year budget (I'm not a smoker myself, but LOL anyway)

 

[Deleted member 13312]

one of the problems with banning tobacco would a dent in the government's then-year budget (I'm not a smoker myself, but LOL anyway)

True, it would seem that greed in this case will trump basic human decency. Oops.........................

 

[broadsword]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"n 2010, smoking caused nearly 1 million (840 000 male, 130 000 female) deaths in China" , so just because something kills people slowly then it's fine even though it kills way way more people per year and cost the economy way way much ? Wow that is some fine standards for yah.

And if China is going to take the first step of completely banning wildlife products ( a move which also have no precedents in the modern world uptill now) then it damn well can consider a ban on the no.1 health bane in the world.

You can pose that question to India and others as well. Why aren't other countries banning it? I have no idea.

I agree with your second point. Should.