3 ms·

We are worried the doing so would simply stimulate new demand for ivory

BurningFrog 11y ago
Increased supply stimulates demand by lowering prices. This would disincentivise poaching. Assuming the fake ivory is cheap enough to manufacture, this could be a sustainable industry, as well as save wildlife.
- KJasper 11y ago
  And it would raise prices for the real thing
- onion2k 11y ago
  Increased supply stimulates demand by lowering prices. This would disincentivise poaching. That only works if the fake product and the real product are indistinguishable goods. Fake ivory and real ivory are not equivalent; one has value as a status symbol. The cheaper fake ivory becomes, the more of a premium there is on having the real thing.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    The same happens the rarer real ivory becomes, yet we see countries destroying ivory and otherwise banning it, making the remaining real stuff all the more valuable.
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      Think of artificial ivory as the "entry-level ivory". People who would never consider buying real ivory might buy fake ivory, because it is cheap enough. But then they grow so fond of fake ivory, they start to lust after real ivory. That's the fear, anyway, and it's not total fantasy. Luxury car brands capture new customers with that exact model. The lowest tier of luxury car is even called the "entry-level" segment.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        This reminds me a lot of the gateway drug argument used to ban pot.
        sliverstorm 11y ago
        There are some big differences, but sure, they are reminiscent of eachother. Experts aren't sure if it would be a problem yet, and are understandably concerned they might simply make the problem worse. Don't rule the concept out simply for vague association with the failing "war on drugs". "Should we flood the market with imitation ivory" and "Should we ban cannabis" are very different questions.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Given two options, both unknown on how they would impact the problem (and near impossible to test even if we did implement a change because we cannot isolate other variables), I would default to the one that increases freedom and decreases imprisoning others. Also, indirect prohibition has shown to be failure time and time again, often being more harmful than not.
        sliverstorm 11y ago
        I'm not here to talk about drugs. How does this connect back to ivory and whether or not we should produce large quantities of fake ivory?
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        That last post was all about ivory, not about drugs. That it can be so easily confused shows the connection between the two.

Increased supply stimulates demand by lowering prices. This would disincentivise poaching. Assuming the fake ivory is cheap enough to manufacture, this could be a sustainable industry, as well as save wildlife.

KJasper 11y ago
And it would raise prices for the real thing
onion2k 11y ago
Increased supply stimulates demand by lowering prices. This would disincentivise poaching. That only works if the fake product and the real product are indistinguishable goods. Fake ivory and real ivory are not equivalent; one has value as a status symbol. The cheaper fake ivory becomes, the more of a premium there is on having the real thing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  The same happens the rarer real ivory becomes, yet we see countries destroying ivory and otherwise banning it, making the remaining real stuff all the more valuable.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Think of artificial ivory as the "entry-level ivory". People who would never consider buying real ivory might buy fake ivory, because it is cheap enough. But then they grow so fond of fake ivory, they start to lust after real ivory. That's the fear, anyway, and it's not total fantasy. Luxury car brands capture new customers with that exact model. The lowest tier of luxury car is even called the "entry-level" segment.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      This reminds me a lot of the gateway drug argument used to ban pot.
      - sliverstorm 11y ago
        There are some big differences, but sure, they are reminiscent of eachother. Experts aren't sure if it would be a problem yet, and are understandably concerned they might simply make the problem worse. Don't rule the concept out simply for vague association with the failing "war on drugs". "Should we flood the market with imitation ivory" and "Should we ban cannabis" are very different questions.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Given two options, both unknown on how they would impact the problem (and near impossible to test even if we did implement a change because we cannot isolate other variables), I would default to the one that increases freedom and decreases imprisoning others. Also, indirect prohibition has shown to be failure time and time again, often being more harmful than not.
        sliverstorm 11y ago
        I'm not here to talk about drugs. How does this connect back to ivory and whether or not we should produce large quantities of fake ivory?
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        That last post was all about ivory, not about drugs. That it can be so easily confused shows the connection between the two.