6 ms·
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
by bilekas 7y ago
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.
- drenginian 7y agoYou really think people in China haven’t been scared out of doing risky things like eating wild animals?
- michaelt 7y agobilekas 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.
- jacquesm 7y agoA ban on paper facilitates a black market.
- ben_w 7y agoNo more so than expecting westerners to be scared out of all the dangerous things we do. Even to the extent that most of us don’t smoke or have lots of unprotected one night stands with strangers, there’s enough who do that they and their illnesses are still a major part of our health systems.
- vraivroo 7y agoEating of meat and sugar are responsible for much more. No need to vilify those whose vices you don't share.
- ben_w 7y agoGeneral public isn’t scared of those things, so they would’ve made a poor example.
- bad_user 7y agoReally? What is eating meat and sugar responsible for?
- vraivroo 7y agoObesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. STDs are _nothing_.
- bad_user 7y agoIn absence of a caloric surplus / chronic overfeeding, also known as energy poisoning, you have absolutely no proof for the claim. There isn't even an association, let alone causation. And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much. Which actually beats dying of starvation, which is what people used to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — comparing food with cigarettes or viruses is completely ridiculous.
- vraivroo 7y agoIt would be historically correct, though.
- bad_user 7y agoWhat do you mean by "historically correct"? You mean blaming sugar or meat when historically people started eating too much, in the 20th century, due to food availability?
- vraivroo 7y agoThe real evil came from the sugar and meat industries, who knew their products caused disease, but paid researchers to cover it up. You my friend are but another victim of their propaganda.
- tenpies 7y agoTo most people, death is as scary as it gets.
- anthony_doan 7y agoI mean... this is the 2nd or 3rd cases of a virus that cross from animal to human from China. Is it that hard to believe China haven't change?
- d0mine 7y agoHow many people are killed by sleep-deprived driving? Is it a common knowledge? Are there social ads? How many people can be saved by increasing public transportation?
- ASalazarMX 7y ago> 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. What if the government starts a massive propaganda campaign about quartz crystals, hot stones or some other abundant and innocuous miracle cure?
- jopsen 7y agoThey 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.
- tomxor 7y ago> 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.
- powerfoolx 7y agoWell, I don't see drug abuse and underage alcohol consumption that uncommon and they are banned.