Alarm as China eases 25-year ban on rhino and tiger parts(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Alarm as China eases 25-year ban on rhino and tiger parts
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46027702
109 comments
Chinese Panda conservation is a kind of 'soft power'. Being a place with Tigers and Rhinos is large bragging rights that I think they would be Keen to hold. Chinese Medicine can be changed to exclude endangered animals if Chinese Govt are able to handpick religious leaders.
Tragedy of the commons problems like environmental issues should really be the main reason for international conflict. It's depressing that it's not.
I have very mixed feelings about this. Let me explain:
This move from China is definitely going to bring more incentive for illegal poaching. It's just simple economics: by officially bringing a market back, profits to be made are much greater, and people will find any way to get in on the action.
If, however, if we provide more _legal_ means for people to benefit from the tiger and rhino markets, we could provide enough economic incentive for people to be invested in their survival. The big deal here would be the opportunity for private ownership (rhino and tiger 'farms' basically). People will viciously protect what's theirs from poachers and ensure it's continued existence, especially if there is money to be made by doing so.
If people are allowed to privately own, breed, and sell their tigers and rhinos, I think China's move could actually _facilitate recovery_ for both species.
But is that what China's planning to do? I doubt it given their track record and political philosophies, which means this is going to only make the extinction of tigers and rhino's a bigger problem.
This move from China is definitely going to bring more incentive for illegal poaching. It's just simple economics: by officially bringing a market back, profits to be made are much greater, and people will find any way to get in on the action.
If, however, if we provide more _legal_ means for people to benefit from the tiger and rhino markets, we could provide enough economic incentive for people to be invested in their survival. The big deal here would be the opportunity for private ownership (rhino and tiger 'farms' basically). People will viciously protect what's theirs from poachers and ensure it's continued existence, especially if there is money to be made by doing so.
If people are allowed to privately own, breed, and sell their tigers and rhinos, I think China's move could actually _facilitate recovery_ for both species.
But is that what China's planning to do? I doubt it given their track record and political philosophies, which means this is going to only make the extinction of tigers and rhino's a bigger problem.
Surely China is looking to breed these animals locally rather than chase them around the world? like
https://phasa.co.za/hunting-services/
I thought a lot of traditional Chinese culture got run over by the cultural revolution, but this stuff never did. I wonder why.
Someone in another comment explained that Mao pushed it due to lack of real doctors.
Well that is appropriately disappointing.
Thanks to the pointer and Google, I just "enjoyed" this very good article on the topic: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/retconning-traditional-chin...
> I thought a lot of traditional Chinese culture got run over by the cultural revolution
Asking as a Chinese myself, can you point to some examples?
edit: improve formatting
Asking as a Chinese myself, can you point to some examples?
edit: improve formatting
Did you just mean a general catalogue to branch off from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds
Seems like an unusual question to ask since it's not a sensitive or avoided topic in either organic or mainstream media in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds
Seems like an unusual question to ask since it's not a sensitive or avoided topic in either organic or mainstream media in China.
I don't really know how to address questions when it comes to the answer of "that's just basic history". Maybe history is wrong but I'm always wary of being expected to make the case that it isn't...
What I meant was maybe you can help me by pointing out something in history that was very prosperous before Cultural Revolution but died right after (if I understand "run over" correctly).
"pointing out something in history that was very prosperous before Cultural Revolution but died right after" I don't understand what you're trying to say there.
You can google up all sorts of things if you like. I've found it's not worth my time to post basic history, particularly with regards to China on hacker news. Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else to say.
You can google up all sorts of things if you like. I've found it's not worth my time to post basic history, particularly with regards to China on hacker news. Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else to say.
I'm not defending Cultural Revolution here (no body can). However, Googling "lost tradition Cultural Revolution" didn't give me much, I found one NY Times article [0] but it doesn't talk much on the traditions that got lost in this period.
The wikipedia page on Cultural Revolution in both English and Chinese didn't mention any tradition being lost either.
> Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else to say.
The burden of proving what you said is true should not be on me. You said something bizarre and got challenged.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/world/asia/china-cultural...
The wikipedia page on Cultural Revolution in both English and Chinese didn't mention any tradition being lost either.
> Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else to say.
The burden of proving what you said is true should not be on me. You said something bizarre and got challenged.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/world/asia/china-cultural...
Or any link that backs "It's basic history"
China recently re-banned Ivory after too much backlash. Makes sense they would open up a new market to placate the population that believes in this crap. Looks like Yao Ming has to come out of retirement again.
The ultra solution is to inject to these animals something harm to human, but no harm to themselves. Which can prevent people hunting them for money.
If you look at global warming, the global rise of fascism, and little things like this it's kind of difficult to avoid thinking someone is trying to orchestrate something very bad for the majority of human kind.
"the State Council said powdered forms of rhino horn and bones from dead tigers could be used in "qualified hospitals by qualified doctors"."
Conspiracy aside, this is impossible, since most of TCM is a nonsensical superstition and anyone using tiger or rhino parts as therapy is de facto unqualified as a doctor (or decent human). At least people will die or suffer for harming these animals, since this "treatment" won't impact the course of their diseases at all.
"the State Council said powdered forms of rhino horn and bones from dead tigers could be used in "qualified hospitals by qualified doctors"."
Conspiracy aside, this is impossible, since most of TCM is a nonsensical superstition and anyone using tiger or rhino parts as therapy is de facto unqualified as a doctor (or decent human). At least people will die or suffer for harming these animals, since this "treatment" won't impact the course of their diseases at all.
Please don't toss ideological flamebait ("global rise of fascism") into HN threads. It leads to embarrassingly bad, endlessly repetitive discussion.
For those who want that, there are many other places on the internet to go; not here please.
For those who want that, there are many other places on the internet to go; not here please.
At this point, Chinese fascist government is the greatest threat to humanity and animals alike. They have enacted (and admitted to! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/china-admits-to-opening...) concentration camps for millions of muslims. They are preparing for war in the south China sea (https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-president-orders-mili...). They are killing the ozone https://qz.com/1323519/china-is-the-source-of-the-mysterious.... And of course, there's the whole sesame credit score, AI-enhanced surveillance, oppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, etc.
How is this specific thing "very bad for the majority of human kind"?
It's very bad for rhinos and tigers, for sure.
It's very bad for rhinos and tigers, for sure.
It's just a disgusting little ornament on the much larger birthday cake we've got baking in our oven.
To the backdrop of mass die-offs, the rules preventing the extinction of rhinos and tigers are cut by a few power-hungry fools seeking the political support of a few greedy fools who will sell those animals' horns and bones as false cures to a few superstitious fools who believe these worthless tusks and bones have magical powers. It's such dark planetary tragicomedy -- with a focus on "tragic", a kind of satanic genius that even Mikhail Boulgakov couldn't have dreamed up, and it's real.
To the backdrop of mass die-offs, the rules preventing the extinction of rhinos and tigers are cut by a few power-hungry fools seeking the political support of a few greedy fools who will sell those animals' horns and bones as false cures to a few superstitious fools who believe these worthless tusks and bones have magical powers. It's such dark planetary tragicomedy -- with a focus on "tragic", a kind of satanic genius that even Mikhail Boulgakov couldn't have dreamed up, and it's real.
Encouraging the poaching of keystone species like the tiger is bad for the ecosystem and by consequence any advantages humanity gains from the ecosystem are lost.
This specific thing isn't, just taken against the broader backdrop of similar events and trends.
The idea that we can exploit and destroy a species for our own supposed and unproven benefit is very short sighted and shows we are not a species capable of living holistically with our world.
>the global rise of fascism
This is only happening for an extremely loose and almost meaningless definition of fascism.
This is only happening for an extremely loose and almost meaningless definition of fascism.
Nah, it's pretty legitimately taking root: https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/1056811593177227264.
What is specifically fascist about this?
It's a slap in the face of any global cooperation and a yes-please to more nationalistic Volksmagie.
not really. it's just authoritarian. people need to stop using fascistic when they mean authoritarian.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
> strong regimentation of society and of the economy
This is exactly what China is in the process of implementing via their social/sesame credit system. Semantics aside, it's not good.
> strong regimentation of society and of the economy
This is exactly what China is in the process of implementing via their social/sesame credit system. Semantics aside, it's not good.
oh thanks, i never thought to look at the actual definition. except how useful is that definition really, and how is it different than say any other dictatorship? yes, ultranationalism, but is PRC ultranationalistic? sure, one china, but there's also loads of flags in america.
you can argue PRC is more totalitarianism than just authoritarianism. but IMO, fascism is too vague to be useful without hindsight. for example, how is fascism meaningfully different than social nationalism? so please, don't just condescendingly throw out a cherry picked definition
you can argue PRC is more totalitarianism than just authoritarianism. but IMO, fascism is too vague to be useful without hindsight. for example, how is fascism meaningfully different than social nationalism? so please, don't just condescendingly throw out a cherry picked definition
It's not cherry picked. It's literally the first result in Google, from Wikipedia.
[deleted]
To me that screams communism rather than fascism.
Communist China is fascist now? China is as fascist as the Soviet Union was.
Just because fascism and "communism" (as in, communism as implemented in China or the USSR) were at odds in the mid-20th century, doesn't mean they're incompatible.
I think that after a point communism and fascism are only different in name. Taken to extremes the outcome is the same; consolidation of power and wealth, suppression of opposition, and as near to absolute control as possible.
haha you have no idea how many people you are going to anger with your comment
To be fair, they can start with different ideologies, but they end up very much the same: crushing individuals for the benefit of the all-powerful State. Does not matter if it's right or left, at the end of the day you get the following:
- Abolition of private property
- Abolition of civil liberties
- Abolition of political liberties
- Abolition of Free Press
- Systematic repression, the reign of fear
- Glorification of the Nation
- Quasi-Nationalization of Means of Production (whether private enterprise still exist is irrelevant, as they have to prone allegiance to the State)
- Mass murdering of political opposition and minorities
Same thing happened in France during the French Revolution, and nobody called it Fascism or Communism at the time but the idea of oppressing individuals for an utopian State was already there.
- Abolition of private property
- Abolition of civil liberties
- Abolition of political liberties
- Abolition of Free Press
- Systematic repression, the reign of fear
- Glorification of the Nation
- Quasi-Nationalization of Means of Production (whether private enterprise still exist is irrelevant, as they have to prone allegiance to the State)
- Mass murdering of political opposition and minorities
Same thing happened in France during the French Revolution, and nobody called it Fascism or Communism at the time but the idea of oppressing individuals for an utopian State was already there.
There are semantic differences, sure. The outcomes are horrifyingly the same. Lots of people die.
Some 10 million in fascist Germany[0], some 60 million in Soviet Russia, more than 70 million in communist China, etc.[1] Though, I'm not sure how to treat "just let them starve". Is it murder if you have the means to feed them? Is it murder if you don't even try?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
Some 10 million in fascist Germany[0], some 60 million in Soviet Russia, more than 70 million in communist China, etc.[1] Though, I'm not sure how to treat "just let them starve". Is it murder if you have the means to feed them? Is it murder if you don't even try?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
I wasn't arguing against you. I just know the statement you posted pisses off both fascists and communists which I'm completely fine with.
Very Blade Runner.
Those interested in the evidence (or lack thereof) of TCM should read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine
"qualified doctor" as in qualified to pratice medicine by the government, which is not what you think
[deleted]
China is the number one threat to the US and to the future of the planet. We ignore it and trade with them out of pure greed. It’s immoral and there should be more sense of public shame. Doing business with China makes you an enemy of freedom and the environment. Doing business with them is no different than going out and poaching the endangered rhinos yourself.
Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Doing business with China has also helped lift 500 million people out of extreme poverty in the past 35 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
And because of this government, tons of those people lost their jobs and had to go back to the rural farms, where they will go into extreme poverty again. The same government that made these people suffer through 40 years of pain, 70 years ago.
It was American capital and knowledge that lifted these people out of extreme poverty.
It was American capital and knowledge that lifted these people out of extreme poverty.
Some seem to think the goal of all humanity should be to “lift everyone out of poverty.” Even if it destroys the planet and leads to massive humanitarian crises and ever greater suffering, putting dollars in wallets, that’s the point of it all. Homo economicus.
"poverty" in this case is not "below the US poverty line". "poverty", when used in this context, means failure to satisfy the physiological layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: starvation, lack of decent shelter, disease, etc. The suffering from "poverty" in this sense is unimaginable to me. The fact that it's more or less hidden and not a big-ticket media item doesn't make it less of a humanitarian crisis or reduce the suffering involved.
Or put another way, we're not talking about putting dollars in wallets. We're talking about putting food in children's mouths, clothes on their backs, roofs over their heads. Maybe even some education in those heads. Yes, I just used a "think of the children" argument, sorry.
Or put another way, we're not talking about putting dollars in wallets. We're talking about putting food in children's mouths, clothes on their backs, roofs over their heads. Maybe even some education in those heads. Yes, I just used a "think of the children" argument, sorry.
Aren't you using a laptop/phone or something to type this comment on? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Seriously, every single one of us being on HN is the product of being stupidly lucky to be born where we were and be typing on whatever we are.
Millions of potential Einsteins have lived and died as subsistence farmers or worse throughout human history. If any of us were born fifty thousand years ago we would not be savant geniuses bringing about the agricultural era - if we even lived to adulthood (highly unlikely) we would have spent our days chasing gazelle to exhaustion to survive just like the rest of mankind.
Millions of potential Einsteins have lived and died as subsistence farmers or worse throughout human history. If any of us were born fifty thousand years ago we would not be savant geniuses bringing about the agricultural era - if we even lived to adulthood (highly unlikely) we would have spent our days chasing gazelle to exhaustion to survive just like the rest of mankind.
This is the kind of problem that individual action cannot solve. It's well modeled by tragedy of the commons. Similarly I'd vote for banning slaughter of animals for meat, but in the meantime am not a full-time vegetarian any longer.
biglenny(3)
According to this, the greatest culprit isn't China. It's the industrial revolution.
When did lifting millions out of poverty lead to “massive humanitarian crises and ever greater suffering”? How callous and sheltered do you have to be to say something like that?
Surely the absurdity of someone like you telling the world’s poor that they ought to stay poor doesn’t escape you?
Surely the absurdity of someone like you telling the world’s poor that they ought to stay poor doesn’t escape you?
>How callous and sheltered do you have to be to say something like that?
Keep the dialogue civil.
It turns out that industrializing a society creates a lot of pollution. That pollution, as we've recently found out, is responsible for "the massive humanitarian crises and greater suffering" we are going to experience as impoverished nations continue to industrialize (ie. get lifted out of poverty).
See: IPCC
Keep the dialogue civil.
It turns out that industrializing a society creates a lot of pollution. That pollution, as we've recently found out, is responsible for "the massive humanitarian crises and greater suffering" we are going to experience as impoverished nations continue to industrialize (ie. get lifted out of poverty).
See: IPCC
Your premise is wrong. This is called the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even more true once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even more true once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.
You don't understand what you are talking about.
EKC works with pollutants that have short term, acute consequences. Think sulfates, nitrates, carbon monoxide, etc.
EKC has not been proven true with pollutants whose effects are less concentrated and whose effects take longer to realize (CH4, CO2, etc). The catastrophes I'm referring to have little to do with the paper you cited.
EKC works with pollutants that have short term, acute consequences. Think sulfates, nitrates, carbon monoxide, etc.
EKC has not been proven true with pollutants whose effects are less concentrated and whose effects take longer to realize (CH4, CO2, etc). The catastrophes I'm referring to have little to do with the paper you cited.
According to https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/0..., it seems that there is a positive correlation between GDP per capita and carbon emissions per capita at first, but the correlation stops after that and becomes neutral. In the UK and US, for example, carbon emissions per capita remained roughly constant over a 50 year period even as GDP per capita increased significantly.
If you look at the number. It's clear that historically the US has done just as much if not more damage to the environment as China has.
Case in point: cumulative greenhouse gas emission
http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2015/06/Historic-emis...
On a per capita basis, China is doing less harm to the environment than those in the US.
Case in point: cumulative greenhouse gas emission
http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2015/06/Historic-emis...
On a per capita basis, China is doing less harm to the environment than those in the US.
Your argument boils down to "nobody is perfect, so nobody has any room to criticise." The fact is that everyone makes decisions which contribute to these problems, but everyone is also responsible for trying to be better. China certainly has the right to criticise the US for our foreign policy and for our backsliding on climate change. However we have the right to criticise China for their killing of critically endangered species for medicine that doesn't work.
Well, we can see how well the Japanese are doing with their "scientific research" whale killing, which is really bad as they are using it as a excuse to continue the practice. Similar loopholes will be found here, for example: if i capture a rhino and send it to a farm for 1 week, is it now a animal that we can do "research" on? What about 1 month?
All you have to do is slip illegal rhino into the supply chain somewhere. It's not that difficult. Exactly what happened with the ivory market.
> Well, we can see how well the Japanese are doing with their "scientific research" whale killing, which is really bad as they are using it as a excuse to continue the practice.
The whales they research aren't endangered. Also, other nations and people hunt whales.
> Similar loopholes will be found here, for example: if i capture a rhino and send it to a farm for 1 week, is it now a animal that we can do "research" on? What about 1 month?
That's a possibility. But more likely, it'll create more tiger/rhino "farms". Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable just like trophy hunting.
Also, the threat to tigers and rhinos aren't poachers. It's loss of habitat due to human population growth. Where humans live in numbers, it's hard to have tigers and rhinos around because they can easily kill humans. It's why most tigers and rhinos in the world today are in zoos or wildlife enclosures.
The whales they research aren't endangered. Also, other nations and people hunt whales.
> Similar loopholes will be found here, for example: if i capture a rhino and send it to a farm for 1 week, is it now a animal that we can do "research" on? What about 1 month?
That's a possibility. But more likely, it'll create more tiger/rhino "farms". Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable just like trophy hunting.
Also, the threat to tigers and rhinos aren't poachers. It's loss of habitat due to human population growth. Where humans live in numbers, it's hard to have tigers and rhinos around because they can easily kill humans. It's why most tigers and rhinos in the world today are in zoos or wildlife enclosures.
"Also, other nations and people hunt whales."
A grand total of ...two. And not at the scale of the Japanese. Iceland even exports whale meat to the Japanese because they don't eat enough of it. To top it off, Japan has to subsidize the "industry" (quotes used because Japan claims it's for research) because it's unprofitable.
Sources:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729043-000-taxpayer...
https://www.ifaw.org/united-states/our-work/whales/which-cou...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151203-why-do-some-countrie...
A grand total of ...two. And not at the scale of the Japanese. Iceland even exports whale meat to the Japanese because they don't eat enough of it. To top it off, Japan has to subsidize the "industry" (quotes used because Japan claims it's for research) because it's unprofitable.
Sources:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729043-000-taxpayer...
https://www.ifaw.org/united-states/our-work/whales/which-cou...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151203-why-do-some-countrie...
> The whales they research aren't endangered.
Does it really matter? Number of countries agree not to whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#International_Whaling_...) and Japan is OK to do that?
> Also, other nations and people hunt whales.
Other people kill people as well. Should I be afraid of you?
Does it really matter? Number of countries agree not to whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#International_Whaling_...) and Japan is OK to do that?
> Also, other nations and people hunt whales.
Other people kill people as well. Should I be afraid of you?
Yeah, it really matters if the whales that Japan is hunting are endangered. One is an ecological catastrophe, the other is safe harvesting of wildlife.
> Also, the threat to tigers and rhinos aren't poachers.
Actually that's a big threat, sorry to burst your bubble, they're threatened by multiple different human factors.
Actually that's a big threat, sorry to burst your bubble, they're threatened by multiple different human factors.
Is the problem with whaling that whales are endangered, or that they're "too intelligent"? If the latter, is there a similar issue with hunting non-human primates?
The problem with whaling it's that whales are an important component of the ocean ecosystem, and killing most of the whales will have dire consequences. Cows and chickens are not part of the natural world and killing then to eat them has no effect other than ending an animal's life.
It's not about endangerment, it's about recognizing that the earth is a fragile system that we're pushing closer to the edge with every extinction. We have a responsibility to our descendants to take care of their planet for them until they can arrive.
It's not about endangerment, it's about recognizing that the earth is a fragile system that we're pushing closer to the edge with every extinction. We have a responsibility to our descendants to take care of their planet for them until they can arrive.
>It's not about endangerment, it's about recognizing that the earth is a fragile system that we're pushing closer to the edge with every extinction. We have a responsibility to our descendants to take care of their planet for them until they can arrive.
Except this literally doesn't apply to Japan. The whales Japan is hunting are not endangered, and there is no proposed mechanism whereby Japan's whale hunting causes ecological harm. The IWC's own scientists recommended the whale hunting moratorium be removed around 1994.
Except this literally doesn't apply to Japan. The whales Japan is hunting are not endangered, and there is no proposed mechanism whereby Japan's whale hunting causes ecological harm. The IWC's own scientists recommended the whale hunting moratorium be removed around 1994.
If people think whales shouldn't be killed for moral/aesthetic/religious/whatever reasons, and can convince everyone else to agree (presumably at the level of nation states), that's fine even if they're not all endangered or critical to the ecosystem. I just want people to be honest about why they don't want it.
Many of these justifications are easily ended by just not killing any animals.
> Also, other nations and people hunt whales.
Ah yes, the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
Ah yes, the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
We've got a president trying to actively dismantle the EPA and remove the protections on endangered species. We were the primary pressure being applied to China - why would they stop now?
I would imagine some in the upper echelons of their government know that it's all completely bogus, but if it keeps the people happy, I doubt they care.
I would imagine some in the upper echelons of their government know that it's all completely bogus, but if it keeps the people happy, I doubt they care.
Your suspicion seems grounded in fact. Traditional Chinese medicine was pushed by Mao because there weren’t enough real doctors. He didn’t even believe in it, and I imagine the current leaders don’t either.
And now it and other "natural" cures are being pushed by supposedly educated doctors.
My wife showed up from PT with the signs of cupping. If you think that's bad, let me terrify you further: insurance company paid for it
My wife showed up from PT with the signs of cupping. If you think that's bad, let me terrify you further: insurance company paid for it
Your comment confused me a little bit as it sounded like it was done without her knowing but I would think you would notice that. "Cupping", for those like me who had never heard of it, involves putting devices on your body (There are different sizes, shapes, and materials) that "suck" up some of your skin into the vessel. It's supposed to be good for you but stinks to high heaven of BS (and the lack of any evidence to prove it helps confirms that).
You can google for the images (it's semi-NSFW).
You can google for the images (it's semi-NSFW).
>BS (and the lack of any evidence to prove it helps confirms that)
back in USSR it was practiced as a home remedy in case of flu and i had it several times as child. You do feel warmed up similar like if you had a strong massage done upon your back and you nicely drift asleep after that. It is in general direction of supportive actions during flu. It isn't a cure - and there is no cure for [viral] flu - yet it helps getting through it. The same way like a bit of vodka with really hot tea following a really heavy sauna session - the way i been managing flu since high school - there is no medical evidence that it medically helps too, yet it does help you to get through :)
back in USSR it was practiced as a home remedy in case of flu and i had it several times as child. You do feel warmed up similar like if you had a strong massage done upon your back and you nicely drift asleep after that. It is in general direction of supportive actions during flu. It isn't a cure - and there is no cure for [viral] flu - yet it helps getting through it. The same way like a bit of vodka with really hot tea following a really heavy sauna session - the way i been managing flu since high school - there is no medical evidence that it medically helps too, yet it does help you to get through :)
The concept that in NYC a licensed physical therapist working out of a medical office can peddle this shit as a medical procedure and bill it under health insurance is ridiculous.
I’m not surprised. Look at how widespread chiropractors (and chiropractic coverage under insurance) are, for example.
But that push may have resulted in important discoveries like that of Artemisinin.
Bye bye tigers.
Stunning, beautiful creatures. Humanity as a while has decided you're more valuable as soup, or ground up into nostrums and magic potions than you are alive, prowling the wild. You're not the first and you won't be the last.
It's shocking that this is still going on in the modern world.
Stunning, beautiful creatures. Humanity as a while has decided you're more valuable as soup, or ground up into nostrums and magic potions than you are alive, prowling the wild. You're not the first and you won't be the last.
It's shocking that this is still going on in the modern world.
Noooooo!! This is horrible news
Everyone's got to work harder in the west so we can get back to dominating the earth such that we can impose our scientific value system on the superstitious heathen. /s
All you guys going around saying Chinese traditional medicine is worthless are like all the diplomats flying in to Israel saying that the conflict with the Palestinians is just a land dispute and has nothing to do with religion. You don't believe in anyone's values but your own.
Yeah, I like Rhinos and Tigers and if I had a button that said make sure I can keep seeing rhinos and tigers when I go to the zoo once a year, I'd push it, but if they disappeared my world and the world of most people would be largely unaffected except for watching t.v documentaries about it happening in countries I will never travel to. That's what majorly weirds me out about some animal rights issues. None of this stuff will ever have an impact on your day to day life ever, yet people care so intensely about it. How did we come to intensely value Tigers and Rhinos even though our only interaction with them throughout our life is a couple of minutes during occasional visits to the zoo?
All you guys going around saying Chinese traditional medicine is worthless are like all the diplomats flying in to Israel saying that the conflict with the Palestinians is just a land dispute and has nothing to do with religion. You don't believe in anyone's values but your own.
Yeah, I like Rhinos and Tigers and if I had a button that said make sure I can keep seeing rhinos and tigers when I go to the zoo once a year, I'd push it, but if they disappeared my world and the world of most people would be largely unaffected except for watching t.v documentaries about it happening in countries I will never travel to. That's what majorly weirds me out about some animal rights issues. None of this stuff will ever have an impact on your day to day life ever, yet people care so intensely about it. How did we come to intensely value Tigers and Rhinos even though our only interaction with them throughout our life is a couple of minutes during occasional visits to the zoo?
It may be a way to express discontent and distrust upon our civilization, to preserve whatever is "Wild and Beautiful", or to save ourselves (as in The Roots of Heaven).
You know nothing about my day to day life so please stop making massive assumptions & generalizations about people who read HN.
The worth of traditional Chinese medicine isn’t a matter of values. It’s a simple factual question with a simple answer.
There's a lot of interests in the plants and fungi, or even some animal extracts, used in traditional Chinese medicine because they often do contain active chemicals that may be used.
It's like traditional remedies in the West: The plants used usually really do have medicinal properties.
(I'm not saying that a rhino horn has any useful properties, though...)
Edit: What's wrong, guys?
It's like traditional remedies in the West: The plants used usually really do have medicinal properties.
(I'm not saying that a rhino horn has any useful properties, though...)
Edit: What's wrong, guys?
Once a plant, fungus or animal extract is proven to work (or a compound isolated from it, and that proven to work) it is no longer "traditional medicine". It is simply "medicine".
There is no evidence of any use for tiger penis or rhino horn.
There is no evidence of any use for tiger penis or rhino horn.
> There is no evidence of any use for tiger penis or rhino horn.
I made it clear that I didn't think there was.
You guys need to calm down and put the pitchforks away.
I made it clear that I didn't think there was.
You guys need to calm down and put the pitchforks away.
Why should we put the pitchforks away? The stuff that works isn't traditional medicine, and at best traditional medicine harms people by keeping them away from actual treatment. Its role in driving tigers and rhinos closer to extinction is merely a more obvious, albeit less serious, example of the problems it causes.
> Why should we put the pitchforks away?
Lynch away. It's easier than thinking.
Lynch away. It's easier than thinking.
It's not clear whether you're arguing against applying the scientific method to TCM, or perhaps overstating the effectiveness of it.
(I'm not downmodding you; I can't on replies to my own comments.)
(I'm not downmodding you; I can't on replies to my own comments.)
> All you guys going around saying Chinese traditional medicine is worthless are like
Sorry this is nonsense. Medicine either works or doesn't. TCM is woo writ large. This isn't about value systems, it's about evidence, it's about scams and fraud preying on ignorance.
> if they disappeared my world and the world of most people would be largely unaffected
And as the number of species of wild animal on the planet ticks down to zero, this is the sort of complacency that will say "well it's been fine so far, I still have my Brawndo"
Sorry this is nonsense. Medicine either works or doesn't. TCM is woo writ large. This isn't about value systems, it's about evidence, it's about scams and fraud preying on ignorance.
> if they disappeared my world and the world of most people would be largely unaffected
And as the number of species of wild animal on the planet ticks down to zero, this is the sort of complacency that will say "well it's been fine so far, I still have my Brawndo"
>And as the number of species of wild animal on the planet ticks down to zero, this is the sort of complacency that will say "well it's been fine so far, I still have my Brawndo"
Rhino and Tigers could be raised as livestock for their valuable whatever, but people seem to be even more opposed to that than letting wild animals go extinct. That's the spiritual part of it. The value of wild animal life for its own sake is taken as an absolute value.
Rhino and Tigers could be raised as livestock for their valuable whatever, but people seem to be even more opposed to that than letting wild animals go extinct. That's the spiritual part of it. The value of wild animal life for its own sake is taken as an absolute value.
The existence of wildlife and its part in maintaining the wider ecosystem is its own value.
Jaysus.
Jaysus.