5 ms·

Horrific, not surprising, but horrific. It’s a little slice of Niven-esque sci-fi hell, here and now. Still, while a crackdown on the groups that based their re

Horrific, not surprising, but horrific. It’s a little slice of Niven-esque sci-fi hell, here and now. Still, while a crackdown on the groups that based their research on these organs is a must, I’m not sure that retracting the research is the way to do it. Suspend their licenses to practice, cut their funding and subject them to scrutiny, but if the research is good it should be agnostic as to the source. It should be possible both to set an example which discourages this practice in the future, without the loss of the research itself.

krastanov 8y ago
I understand your suggestion about not retracting the research and I am certain reasonable people would fall on both sides of this question. But it is not unreasonable to destroy something useful that appeared thanks to something horrible, in a show of moral leadership and an absolutist refutation of the horrible practice. For a much lower stakes example: The bounty confiscated from poachers (ivory for instance) is destroyed instead of being legally sold to fund the anti-poaching efforts.
- gotocake 8y ago
  Of course destruction of ivory makes the remaining ivory more rare, more valuable, and desireable. The issue with ivory poaching isn’t going to be solved by Drug War tactics, and just like burning a pile of cocaine it does nothing to solve the problem, it just makes people feel better.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Experts tend to find the question much more complicated than your armchair economics would suggest. The real world rarely follows what you learn in the first week of Econ 101. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-ivory-crush-elephant-poaching/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-i... Mind you, I am not saying that your thesis has no value, rather that you have way more confidence in it than it deserves.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem to break down in terms of “signaling” or “sending a message”, and the argument I represented which is grounded in the evidence. For spice we have the person pointing out that in fact these burns/crushes present a ripe opportunity to steal the ivory. In some corrupt countries, ivory burns and crushes can act as a way to steal ivory because it is not all carefully recorded in its destruction. Although initially these acts made a statement as a cry for help, such as with the first Kenya burn in 1989 that helped put ivory out of fashion in the U.S. and Europe, many in Asia find destruction to be against their culture and think the ivory could be used for making an artistic monument as a long-term statement instead. It is the Asians, especially the Chinese, whose viewpoints on this issue count the most, as they are the main consumers of ivory. Ivory crushes can detract from what is really needed to save elephants: much greater efforts on law enforcement and improving ways to protect elephants in their natural habitat. Experts clearly disagree, but I find arguments about sending messages or deterrence unconvincing, as they tend to come from the gut rather than the evidence. It’s just that kind of sloppy thinking that death penalty advocates often use when confronted with evidence as well.
- lowry 8y ago
  The ivory example is bad. Aside from being illogcal, it is also wasteful. It profits only politicians and impostors.

krastanov 8y ago

I understand your suggestion about not retracting the research and I am certain reasonable people would fall on both sides of this question. But it is not unreasonable to destroy something useful that appeared thanks to something horrible, in a show of moral leadership and an absolutist refutation of the horrible practice. For a much lower stakes example: The bounty confiscated from poachers (ivory for instance) is destroyed instead of being legally sold to fund the anti-poaching efforts.

gotocake 8y ago
Of course destruction of ivory makes the remaining ivory more rare, more valuable, and desireable. The issue with ivory poaching isn’t going to be solved by Drug War tactics, and just like burning a pile of cocaine it does nothing to solve the problem, it just makes people feel better.
- krastanov 8y ago
  Experts tend to find the question much more complicated than your armchair economics would suggest. The real world rarely follows what you learn in the first week of Econ 101. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-ivory-crush-elephant-poaching/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-i... Mind you, I am not saying that your thesis has no value, rather that you have way more confidence in it than it deserves.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem to break down in terms of “signaling” or “sending a message”, and the argument I represented which is grounded in the evidence. For spice we have the person pointing out that in fact these burns/crushes present a ripe opportunity to steal the ivory. In some corrupt countries, ivory burns and crushes can act as a way to steal ivory because it is not all carefully recorded in its destruction. Although initially these acts made a statement as a cry for help, such as with the first Kenya burn in 1989 that helped put ivory out of fashion in the U.S. and Europe, many in Asia find destruction to be against their culture and think the ivory could be used for making an artistic monument as a long-term statement instead. It is the Asians, especially the Chinese, whose viewpoints on this issue count the most, as they are the main consumers of ivory. Ivory crushes can detract from what is really needed to save elephants: much greater efforts on law enforcement and improving ways to protect elephants in their natural habitat. Experts clearly disagree, but I find arguments about sending messages or deterrence unconvincing, as they tend to come from the gut rather than the evidence. It’s just that kind of sloppy thinking that death penalty advocates often use when confronted with evidence as well.
lowry 8y ago
The ivory example is bad. Aside from being illogcal, it is also wasteful. It profits only politicians and impostors.