4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect The term cobra effect originated in an anecdote set at the time of Britis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect The term cobra effect originated in an anecdote set at the time of British rule of colonial India. The British government was concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi.[3] The government therefore offered bounty for every dead cobra. Initially this was a successful strategy as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually, however, enterprising people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, the reward program was scrapped, causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent solution for the problem made the situation even worse

tzs 9y ago
What did the Delhi residents themselves think about cobras? Were the natives OK with cobras running around and it was just the British that wanted to reduce the population? I'm curious because if everybody disliked wild cobras loose in the city I'd have expected the breeders to kill their stock when the bounty ended, not free it.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Why would you expect that in a world where people dump hazardous waste into rivers to save money?
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    Because dehazarding waste is more difficult than chopping up a snake?
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      But letting the snakes go is even easier. Use the example of people littering instead of using a trash can, or not flushing public toilets, if you need a demonstration of how people can't be bothered with even simple tasks.
      - tedunangst 9y ago
        Most people aren't worried their litter will literally come back to bite them. Were the snake breeders really unconcerned that dumping a bunch of snakes out the back window wouldn't have consequences?
        Johnny555 9y ago
        They were breeding poisonous snakes in a land where those snakes already live in the wild, I doubt they were worried about having a few more of those snakes out there. These breeders were trying to scam a government program so they didn't exactly have the highest scruples, expecting them to do anything to aid society is probably too much to expect.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        Besides the other explanation you got, the effect of any one breeder loosing his snakes was probably pretty small compared to the cumulative effect.
  - zeusk 9y ago
    > a world where people dump hazardous waste into rivers to save money That mostly comes down to insufficient education, greed and lack of immediate consequences. Letting a live snake roam free is entirely different in that an uneducated man would understand the risk, there is no upside and there is a possibility for immediate consequence.
  - stochastic_monk 9y ago
    Happens in America, too.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681073
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Why? Killing them requires, well, doing something. You have to actually kill them, which takes effort, and then you have to dispose of the carcasses, which takes effort. On the other hand, simply turning them loose is no effort at all.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    If you own a machete (or rampiri, or kukri), the marginal cost (and frankly effort) of killing a cobra is basically zero. And disposing of the dead ones has to be as easy or easier than disposing of live ones if you factor in any factors related to other people...
otakucode 9y ago
Things like that should be, but never are, a real teaching moment for people. Manipulating social behavior through any means other than education (which isn't manipulation) leads to destructive unintended consequences. Look at what happened in the USA thanks to the American Heart Association. The AHA thought they saw a slight suggestion in the data that high levels of saturated fat led to heart disease. They wanted to stop heart disease. So they set a goal. Reduce the average Americans dietary intake of saturated fats by 15%. They worked for years with other agencies, legislators, regulators, and food companies. And they succeeded! They dropped the average Americans intake of saturated fats (well specifically the portion of the daily calorie intake made up of saturated fats) by 15%! There was an issue though. Food makers took fat out of their foods, producing "Lite" versions. These tasted like cardboard. People stopped buying. To get people to buy their products again, they brought back the flavor. With salt and lots of sugar. This led to a gigantic increase in the total number of calories people ate. Which led to a nationwide obesity episdemic. Which led to a national diabetes epidemic. Which led to record-breaking levels of... heart disease. Oh, and research found that saturated fats aren't a danger to heart health. But once you've put things into law, established practices and regulations, it's tremendously difficult to change. If they had just told everyone they thought saturated fats might cause heart disease, none of this would have happened. And they would have been able to retract their statements on a dime.
- pizza 9y ago
  this, this, this... a thousand times, this....... nay, 1 in 4 [0] x 330 million times, this......... [0] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

tzs 9y ago

What did the Delhi residents themselves think about cobras? Were the natives OK with cobras running around and it was just the British that wanted to reduce the population? I'm curious because if everybody disliked wild cobras loose in the city I'd have expected the breeders to kill their stock when the bounty ended, not free it.

emodendroket 9y ago
Why would you expect that in a world where people dump hazardous waste into rivers to save money?
- tedunangst 9y ago
  Because dehazarding waste is more difficult than chopping up a snake?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    But letting the snakes go is even easier. Use the example of people littering instead of using a trash can, or not flushing public toilets, if you need a demonstration of how people can't be bothered with even simple tasks.
    - tedunangst 9y ago
      Most people aren't worried their litter will literally come back to bite them. Were the snake breeders really unconcerned that dumping a bunch of snakes out the back window wouldn't have consequences?
      - Johnny555 9y ago
        They were breeding poisonous snakes in a land where those snakes already live in the wild, I doubt they were worried about having a few more of those snakes out there. These breeders were trying to scam a government program so they didn't exactly have the highest scruples, expecting them to do anything to aid society is probably too much to expect.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Besides the other explanation you got, the effect of any one breeder loosing his snakes was probably pretty small compared to the cumulative effect.
- zeusk 9y ago
  > a world where people dump hazardous waste into rivers to save money That mostly comes down to insufficient education, greed and lack of immediate consequences. Letting a live snake roam free is entirely different in that an uneducated man would understand the risk, there is no upside and there is a possibility for immediate consequence.
- stochastic_monk 9y ago
  Happens in America, too.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681073
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Why? Killing them requires, well, doing something. You have to actually kill them, which takes effort, and then you have to dispose of the carcasses, which takes effort. On the other hand, simply turning them loose is no effort at all.
- djrogers 9y ago
  If you own a machete (or rampiri, or kukri), the marginal cost (and frankly effort) of killing a cobra is basically zero. And disposing of the dead ones has to be as easy or easier than disposing of live ones if you factor in any factors related to other people...

otakucode 9y ago

Things like that should be, but never are, a real teaching moment for people. Manipulating social behavior through any means other than education (which isn't manipulation) leads to destructive unintended consequences. Look at what happened in the USA thanks to the American Heart Association. The AHA thought they saw a slight suggestion in the data that high levels of saturated fat led to heart disease. They wanted to stop heart disease. So they set a goal. Reduce the average Americans dietary intake of saturated fats by 15%. They worked for years with other agencies, legislators, regulators, and food companies. And they succeeded! They dropped the average Americans intake of saturated fats (well specifically the portion of the daily calorie intake made up of saturated fats) by 15%! There was an issue though. Food makers took fat out of their foods, producing "Lite" versions. These tasted like cardboard. People stopped buying. To get people to buy their products again, they brought back the flavor. With salt and lots of sugar. This led to a gigantic increase in the total number of calories people ate. Which led to a nationwide obesity episdemic. Which led to a national diabetes epidemic. Which led to record-breaking levels of... heart disease. Oh, and research found that saturated fats aren't a danger to heart health. But once you've put things into law, established practices and regulations, it's tremendously difficult to change. If they had just told everyone they thought saturated fats might cause heart disease, none of this would have happened. And they would have been able to retract their statements on a dime.

pizza 9y ago
this, this, this... a thousand times, this....... nay, 1 in 4 [0] x 330 million times, this......... [0] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm