3 days to save elephants

[miriam_e]

Elephants are highly intelligent and are one of the few animals that can recognise themselves in a mirror. They are social animals who experience great anguish when a member of their group is hurt or dies, they are known to make art, music, show compassion, and look after one another's young. Their long lifespan (they can live to more than 80 years) gives them extremely low birth rates and makes them very prone to extinction. In the wild, adult elephants have no natural enemies, except humans. We were wiping them off the face of the Earth until the international ban on ivory dried up most of the profit in killing them. Now Tanzania and Zambia want to lift the ban on ivory sales, which will open the channels for poachers again, even in countries that keep the ban.

Keep the ban on ivory.

We have a rapidly closing window of 3 days to make public opinion heard here.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/no_more_bloody_ivory_gg/

Comments

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I never understood that either. I mean, I know, as greylock points out, that it has only recently been made illegal, but I for one would be in favor of crushing the trade in ivory antiques. It is a screwy trade anyway and it keeps ivory pricey, luring more poachers into it. If it can't be sold anywhere then the bottom would drop out of the market.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

And you would compensate all legitimate owners of ivory for their loss?

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

This would be "loss" in the same sense as people who anticipate getting money from something are disappointed to find their gamble didn't work out the way they expected. We don't compensate people who lose money on slot machines; why should we compensate people who gamble on antiques? It's not a genuine loss. A genuine loss is if someone stole their antique so that they no longer had it.

If someone gambles on the antique market by buying what they consider a sure thing, only to find later that the market has shifted so that their bet turned out to be worthless then they should recognise their purchase for what it really was: simply a gamble.

A person who likes their antique for its real personal appeal doesn't lose anything. They still have their antique and never intended to sell it.

(I've begun to form a theory that people playing markets by buying and selling stuff, not for inherent value, but simply to exploit trends for financial gain without contributing any added service are the root cause of much of the illness in capitalism. I have yet to develop this idea fully, but I have a feeling that many of capitalism's failings would disappear and markets would become more healthy if we could somehow eliminate that kind of investment. I'll be interested to see if I can make something of this idea... despite benefitting indirectly from that kind of wealth.)

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

No, it's not like a slot machine. When you buy something legally, you may expect to be able to sell it again. When you buy a car, you expect to be able to sell it again. When you buy a house, you expect to be able to sell it again. The market may have shifted, but it will still have some value. If the government were to suddenly outlaw the selling of second hand cars or houses, those who own them would expect to be compensated. How is this any different?

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

The desire for people to be compensated when their expectations don't match reality confounds me. I truly don't understand it. Around Australia playgrounds are being closed down or stripped because of parents who demand to be compensated by councils when their kid falls off a swing and breaks an arm. Kids have been falling out of trees and tripping over things since the dawn of time. The idea of suing for compensation seems to be a relatively new, unpleasant import from USA's litigious culture.

If someone bought lots of Bratz dolls and then was horrified to find that Barbie has sued Bratz into oblivion so they are no longer able to complete their collection, when they'd previously had a perfectly reasonable expectation that they could, then why should they be eligible for compensation? Clearly they shouldn't.

If someone else had bought up Bratz dolls, rubbing their hands together with glee at the law suit, expecting to make lots of money in the collectible market later, then they would be very happy at the sudden cessation of Bratz dolls. If however, the original makers were able to overturn the suit or get investment from a country that didn't recognise the US decision then Bratz dolls might once again flood the market, becoming more popular than Barbie once again and destroying the investment of the person who bought Bratz dolls as rare collectibles. Should this person be compensated? Of course not. People have to take responsibility for such decisions.

If we, as a society, decided that the best way to kill off the ivory trade is to simply put a blanket ban in ivory sales, then why should those who'd cynically invested in ivory antiques be compensated? This puzzles me. If they took their chances, but wanted someone else to pay when circumstances change for the worse, then that doesn't seem fair.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a social safety net. That's something quite different. If someone's business failed because they went broke investing everything in ivory then I don't think they should be bailed out. But neither do I think they should starve. I feel we should have a minimum, universal income so that nobody starves and everybody has a chance to get back on their feet. But I don't think bad business decisions should be compensated. It undercuts one of the best mechanisms of an open market: its natural feedback.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

That's my whole point. Making something illegal which has existed for thousands of years is nothing like natural feedback.

There are a couple of different issues here. For one, the outright ban is unnecessary. The existing ban on importation means that countries such as ours can get no more ivory than we now have. If you think that customs may fail to stop all ivory coming in, I would argue that policing points of entry to Australia is easier than policing every home.

As for the dolls, the doll maker's demise is part of the open market. If a government had simply made Bratz dolls illegal to sell then, yes, of course I would expect them to compensate owners. No matter how stupid I might think doll collecting is or how over-priced they might have been, it is not my place, nor yours, to inflict our standards upon others. Government intervention of this type is not "natural feedback" and unilaterally changing the market without compensation is simply wrong.

(If you want to bring values into this, then I'd suggest that human beings generally value, and have always valued, workmanship. Ivory antiques have tended to be carved by Chinese and Japanese artists who have put many hours into each piece. They have a value in art and human workmanship, unlike some manufactured item that fell off a machine in China. That value will continue to exist even if you legislate to say it doesn't.)

To suddenly make arbitrary items illegal and valueless would require a disgracefully authoritarian government and set an appalling precedent in depriving individuals of their freedom. I would immediately worry about what would come next from any person or government which would be so ready to trample over the rights of individuals.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Ah. I think I see the point of disagreement here.

I actually agree that such antique items may well have great intrinsic artistic and sentimental value to owners. That's why I suggested banning sale, not ownership.

I think you may be right that a blanket ban in Australia is unnecessary (as well as probably impractical). However if all western countries chose to blanket ban ivory sales, even antique ivory sales, then in the lead-up to the ban the value would drop so low that it would crush elephanticide even in countries that decided to lift the laws on murdering them.

I disagree that government tinkering with the market is necessarily wrong and unnatural. If it comes about as a result of democratic processes then it can fix or moderate the often broken market forces. There are some things about open markets that work really well, but some that are terrible. Markets can be awful at managing some scarce resources properly. As things become scarce then the value placed on those things by the market rises, almost guaranteeing extermination, as has so often happened in the past. If held in check by enlightened, democratic government then living things (for example, fish) can be allowed to breed back up (in, for instance, marine parks) to replenish fish stocks elsewhere, enriching the everyone and safeguarding markets from themselves.

There are many examples where government can be used to protect the market from itself. Protecting endangered species is just one. Breaking up noxious monopolies is another. Providing a social safety net is another. There are many more.

There are various kinds of government. Government that truly represents the community and helps to keep the market healthy is a necessity. Government that represents only big business's short-term profits is dangerous and leads to the kind of boom-bust economy running wild in USA at the moment. Government that thinks it is above the people and runs as an oligarchy of aristocrats is just as dangerous.

Used properly, government can be our best safety check against the excesses of the marketplace and protect us from giant corporations. The demise of Bratz dolls is a good example. Bratz dolls were much more popular than Barbie and were outselling them to an astounding degree, but Barbie used their financial clout to sue them out of existence. Unfortunately for Bratz the US government didn't step in to protect the little guy.

Incidentally, I personally think Bratz dolls are revolting. They encourage repellent attitudes in their young owners. Barbie, disgusting as it too, might be, at least nowadays attempts to encourage healthy attitudes in children. I have little time for either kind of doll. I have to admit though, that Bratz did brilliantly in the market until the market was screwed by the much more powerful Barbie. Markets are not infallible, and there is an important place for democratic government to stabilise them. It could be argued that democratic government is a natural part of the market, because it are the voice of all the customers.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

However if all western countries chose to blanket ban ivory sales, even antique ivory sales, then in the lead-up to the ban the value would drop so low that it would crush elephanticide even in countries that decided to lift the laws on murdering them.

It penalises owners of ivory who have done nothing wrong. Apparently, you don't mind an economic sanction against certain people, because the ends justifies the means? So, why would you not be in favour of the Conroy internet filter scheme on the same basis? That is being touted in exactly the same way, that the ends justifies and means and that those who are affected by it should just wear it for the greater good.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

That's an odd thing to say. Calm down, take a deep breath, and ease up on the coffee, perhaps. :)

The internet filter isn't an economic sanction. It is censoring of the many by the few -- the complete opposite of what I'd like to see. I'd like to see a minority of ivory traders be unable to encourage the murder of elephants. If sufficient people wanted to get the sale of ivory stopped then it would please me greatly. If insufficient people agreed with me I'd be okay with that. I wouldn't be happy that killing of elephants was still encouraged, but I have no desire to be an evil bastard and impose my will dictatorially upon the bulk of the population. Life's too short, and we already have a surplus of evil bastards. :)

The situation with the internet filter couldn't be more different. It is the cynical manipulation by politicians of a tiny minority of vocal religious zealots in an attempt to impose censorship on the majority. Even worse, it will not do what it is promoted as doing, but actually be used for other purposes entirely: to crack down on sharing, as well as isolating politically inconvenient views from the net.

It is perfectly valid to attempt to control things that genuinely hurt others. This is why machine guns, surface to air missiles, and anti-personnel mines are banned in Australia. Owners of machine guns might not have done anything wrong, but naturally you don't think it is reasonable to let them sell them. It is similar for ivory (though selling body parts of an intelligent creature doesn't look quite as scary as selling the weapons to do the actual slaughter). Sure, the person who has the ivory may well be innocent in a sense, but selling it still encourages murder of elephants -- an eventuality I'm sure you'd not want to foster. If blocking that sale saved lives then surely that is a good thing. Coins in the pocket of an ivory trader hardly compare to lives of intelligent creatures, do they?

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

It's not an odd thing to say. It's a principle. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about "minority" or "majority". Screwing people over doesn't become ok just because they are the minority (ivory owners) and isn't wrong just because they are the majority (those affected by internet filter).

I quite agree that, economically, guns are similar to ivory. And when the government made previously-legal guns illegal, they compensated owners by buying the guns back, just as (I believe) they should.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Absolute principles can blind us to practical realities. Absolute principles are what make fundamentalists so dangerously inflexible.

I still don't think compensating ivory sellers would be a sensible thing to do; it would undermine the intention. In this example the intention would be to send the price of ivory crashing through the floor and sparing the remaining elephants.

I actually don't think the government had an obligation to compensate gun owners in the big gun buy-back, but I do think it was the best way to achieve the objective of getting guns off the street.

And speaking of majority vs minority I'm sure you'd love (as I did) the confounding set of talks called "What's the Right Thing?" by Michael Sandel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
You'll find yourself surprised by your own intuitions as to what is right. It had me laughing at myself. I love having my mind turned upside down the way he did.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Absolute principles can blind us to practical realities. Absolute principles are what make fundamentalists so dangerously inflexible.

I agree with that, when the principles are not basic ones. For example, some people believe that government is better at running large public services, while others believe the opposite. I believe that the reality lies in between, because private competition makes some entities (e.g. banks, airlines) run better, while private competition in some areas (e.g. water supply, electricity supply) is a total waste of resources that doesn't provide anything.

However, there are some principles which are basic and should never be broken, which includes freedom of action, so long as you are not harming others. I can see the possibility of a community deciding that they wanted a nanny government to make our decisions for us, but I don't wish to be a part of such a society and would resist such in any way possible.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

Freedom is always a relative thing though, as my freedom to do things is always circumscribed by my neighbor's freedom to do conflicting things. That's where we have to take account of practical realities. I and my neighbor can tolerate some curtailment of our freedoms in order to obtain wider benefits. Such restrictions of freedoms are ideally voluntary, but in the case of intractable problems may need to be imposed upon some. Reality intrudes here too. Practicality means that the majority will usually win out over a minority (even if the majority is wrong). In cases where a minority succeed in imposing their will upon a majority it is easy to predict long-term instability developing.

I wish it was simple to divide life into clear-cut principles. The closest to a basic principle which I see as almost inviolable is the right to life. However even that is negotiable. I can imagine circumstances where my death might be of benefit to those I care about, or where the death of a dangerous person might be required for survival of others. And although I don't eat meat (unless it is impolite to refuse it), I recognise that others wish to kill animals for food. I don't even kill ants... though I do kill mosquitoes that attempt to sup upon my blood.

Sadly, few things are really basic.

In spite of that I still hold 3 rules as pretty-much central to my existence:

• enhance life
• help other people
• learn

They come from a simple understanding of what is important (for us) in the universe:

• we are alive, and the main purpose of life is to grow more life
• we are a social species, so looking after one another is necessary
• we are an intelligent species -- we must learn

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

My freedom to do things may be circumscribed by my neighbour's freedom to do conflicting things. There is no reason for freedom to be "relative" when there is no conflict. But one person's selling ivory doesn't not inherently affect anyone else's freedom. (If there is a poaching problem in another country, that is the problem that should be fixed.)

Practicality means that the majority will usually win out over a minority.

I'd suggest that's not "practicality", but subjugation. That's the way we get governments making laws against homosexuality, "unnatural" sexual acts, etc. Basing laws on what the majority does just unnecessarily restricts everyone's rights. My assertion is that outlawing any private interaction (whether it be sexual activity, prostitution, ivory collection, dangerous sports, or whatever) is ultimately bad for human self-determination. Even very dangerous activities, such as keeping of dangerous animals, can be allowed so long as there is a strict regulatory framework in place.

Without freedom, we are limited in our ability to do anything, including enhance life, help other people and learn.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. You limit "freedom" (as do most people) as applying only to humans. It used to only apply to white, adult males, but has now widened to people of any color, recently in many places to include females, and to some degree, children. It has also begun to include some animals. For me it is natural to include all highly intelligent beings. Elephants' freedom is definitely affected by the profitability of the market for their body parts.

In pointing out that reality means we must expect that the majority will often win over the minority I'm not saying I like it. As you say, it has from time to time produced abhorrent results. I'm just pointing out that this is how things work (and, incidentally, why we are unlikely to ever get a blanket ban on ivory). I've been enjoying James Suroweicki's amazing book "The Wisdom of Crowds" lately, which points to some possible ways to avoid just such glaring problems in democracy. I highly recommend it. (Want me to send it to you? Email me at mim at miriam-english dot org if you want me to send it. It's actually an audiobook.)

While I like to agree with your final point that our enjoyment of life is limited by our lack of freedom, that is surprisingly not the case. There are many situations where we can be much happier with reduced freedoms. This is a bit of a worry which I think we should all be very careful of because it can easily become a rationale for restricting freedom beyond what is practical into what is comfortable and then into what becomes draconian repression -- just an interesting side-issue to be aware of.

I'm in favor of maximising our freedoms and limiting how much we tread on the toes of others... even elephants' and other intelligent creatures'. The boundary for each person is where a lot of the problems in society occur.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Oops. Damn. I misspelled his name. It is James Surowiecki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Surowiecki).

Read about The Wisdom of Crowds on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) and at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706). And listen to a talk by him that gives the gist of it at ITConversations (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail468.html) (the audio is freely downloadable).