LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+51 51 0
Published 2 years ago with 5 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • PushPull (edited 2 years ago)

    Forgive what may be perceived as backwards thinking, but wouldn't it do more good to flood the market with it to reduce demand, and use the profit to further protect other animals? I understand that this ivory is illicit, but I guess I can't see how destroying it is somehow better considering this is an ongoing struggle.

    Any counter-thoughts on this?

    • spaceghoti

      The reason the ivory market persists is because there's still demand for it. If they sell the ivory they feed that demand and set a precedent where less scrupulous governments subsidize ivory trade to line their own pockets. Destroying the ivory attacks supply and gives no opportunity for anyone to profit with blood money.

      • AdelleChattre

        I feel like if this was seized narcotics you'd have no trouble seeing their destruction as an aspect of keeping prices high.

        • spaceghoti

          That's an aspect I honestly hadn't considered. If you inflate the price by reducing supply then you make it so fewer people can afford it which shrinks demand. With less demand there's less reason to risk your life and liberty creating supply. Still lucrative enough for a few poachers to keep at it but not lucrative enough to make it a popular source of income.

          • AdelleChattre

            Sticking with the Drug War analogy, it's clear that seizing and destroying contraband does nothing at all to reduce demand. It's the most fundamental law of economics, isn't it, that reducing supply without affecting demand simply drives the price up. Whether it's token tonnages of intercepted drug shipments being burned in open pits or elephant's graveyards worth of ivory being crushed, the fact it does nothing to affect demand and only drives up the price may, in fact, be the point. Grandstanding prohibition theater. Or does that strain the analogy?

Here are some other snaps you may like...