DanielLC comments on "Stupid" questions thread - Less Wrong

40 Post author: gothgirl420666 13 July 2013 02:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (850)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 July 2013 06:04:00PM 3 points [-]

Ways as easy as sending a bunch of guys with rifles into the jungle?

Comment author: DanielLC 13 July 2013 08:51:54PM 2 points [-]

You could legalize eating tiger. This will prevent tiger extinction in the same way it prevented cow extinction, result in sending some guys with rifles into the jungle that you don't even pay for, and if that's not enough, you can still send guys with rifles to finish off the wild population, and they still will be less likely to go extinct than if you do nothing.

Comment author: Adele_L 14 July 2013 03:43:27AM 10 points [-]

This will prevent tiger extinction in the same way it prevented cow extinction,

There are lots of reasons why farming cows is significantly easier than farming tigers.

Comment author: DanielLC 14 July 2013 04:52:59AM 2 points [-]

Tiger meat would be much more expensive than beef, but there's still enough of a market for it to keep tigers from going extinct.

Comment author: OphilaDros 14 July 2013 04:31:39PM *  2 points [-]

Not all animals can be domesticated for meat production. Jared Diamond discusses the question in "Guns, Germs and Steel". He calls it the Anna Karenina principle, and some of the factors influencing this are:

  • Growth rate of the species
  • Breeding habits - do they tend to breed well in closed spaces
  • Nasty disposition
  • Social structure
Comment author: gwern 14 July 2013 04:44:41PM 2 points [-]

All of those just increase the cost; certainly they can make things infeasible for hunter-gatherers with per capita incomes of maybe $300 a year generously. But they are of little interest to people with per capitas closer to $30,000 and who are willing to pay for tiger meat.

Comment author: Atelos 14 July 2013 06:26:36PM 5 points [-]

Sharks are legal to eat and this is a major factor in their current risk of extinction.

Comment author: Randy_M 15 July 2013 04:24:12PM 2 points [-]

Isn't extinction risk the goal here? (Not extinction per se, but population reduction down to the level it is no longer a threat. At least in this hypothetical.)

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 15 July 2013 04:30:18PM *  0 points [-]

Sharks are not similar to tigers in that you can't (with current technology?) keep some types of them alive in captivity, but tigers you can. Legalizing eating tiger meat, though, without also legalizing tiger ranches (?) would not be of help in preventing extinction.

Comment author: DanielLC 15 July 2013 03:57:48AM 0 points [-]

Sharks are hard to farm, in that they have all the problems tigers have, but you also have to do it underwater. I also think sharks aren't as in demand as tigers. I've heard tiger meat is a popular snake oil. Or at least stuff that claims to contain tiger meat is.

Comment author: David_Gerard 15 July 2013 07:35:02AM 1 point [-]

In Australia, fish'n'chips is almost certainly shark.

Comment author: J_Taylor 17 July 2013 10:48:50PM 1 point [-]

You could legalize eating tiger.

Tiger parts have a variety of uses in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Making harvesting these parts from farmed tigers would be a somewhat efficacious solution.