Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday May 29 2015, @12:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the are-you-horny-baby? dept.

A startup company called Pembient is developing a process to synthesize rhino horns. Their aim is to mass produce fakes that are indistinguishable from real horns, and hence destroy the profit motive for killing wild rhinos.

The plan begins with using modified yeast cells to produce a substance called keratin, the main component of the horn. Various trace elements found in natural horns are added in, as well as genuine rhino DNA. From these materials, a 3D printer is then used to recreate the complex structure of the horn. The only things that are missing, are the trace elements of pollutants that have made their way into the real rhino horn over time. This makes the synthetic horn more pure than the real one.

Some wildlife groups are very skeptical of the plan.

Pembient's concept, which another company – Rhinoceros Horn LLC – is also pursuing a version of, has raised the hackles of conservation groups from the World Wildlife Foundation to the wildlife monitoring network Traffic. It panders to consumers' behaviour rather than trying to change it, which could set back efforts to educate, they say. "There is general horror at the idea," says Cathy Dean, international director of the UK-based charity Save the Rhino, which earlier this month issued a joint statement with the International Rhino Foundation opposing the synthetic horn. Dean adds that ersatz horn is unlikely to dent the market – if people can afford the real thing they are going to buy it – and rebukes the company for failing properly to consult conservation professionals on the idea first.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @02:30PM

    by WillAdams (1424) on Friday May 29 2015, @02:30PM (#189671)

    I would not consider an education which allowed one to retain an unsupported, superstitious belief about the ``supernatural powers'' of an animal product to be a decent one.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday May 29 2015, @02:48PM

    by CRCulver (4390) on Friday May 29 2015, @02:48PM (#189680) Homepage

    I'm not sure that Chinese consumers would believe these products to have supernatural powers, as they are not meant to impart some mysterious baraka or spiritual energy. Rather, these products are believed to have entirely natural medicinal properties like any number of herbal remedies. Of course, one might hold that the science behind it is bunk, but consumers are basing their trust in the product on a misunderstanding of the science instead of religious belief.

    As for an education that preserves belief in the superstition to not be a "decent" one, again, so much of the Western world with advanced degrees, leaders in their fields, etc., believes in some kind of belief that one might label superstition. Just because a university education isn't perfect in one's eyes doesn't, I think, make a case for calling it "not decent".

    • (Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @06:47PM

      by WillAdams (1424) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:47PM (#189780)

      Please re-read what I wrote:

      > unsupported, superstitious belief about the ``supernatural powers'' of an animal product

      I don't believe that there's any reasonable religion which requires / enforces that (even if one extends it to plant products, it's not the wine or the bread which has supernatural powers, it's the Priest transforming it in a miracle into identical items which have an additional spiritual property through transubstantiation, but are physically identical --- ``the only recommended daily allowance the host has is of God....'' and all that).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @07:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @07:13PM (#189795)

        > reasonable religion

        Don't fall into the trap of thinking that formalized religion is the only kind of religious thinking. For example, catholicism is notorious for adopting local superstitions. Repurposing a pagan holiday into christmas is probably the most well known. So while the big details are likely standardized all the little local influences will not be.

        Chinese medicine is mostly about the body being imbalanced in terms of things like yin-yang, qi, etc and the treatments are meant to restore balance. Given that frame of reference it is entire plausible that artificially manufactured treatments will lack the required amount of yin, qi, etc. Traditional chinese medicine doesn't have a consistent formalized practice the way western medicine does so at a minimum one 'doctor' can have a different idea about what is valid and what isn't.

      • (Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday May 29 2015, @07:52PM

        by CRCulver (4390) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:52PM (#189813) Homepage
        And please re-read what I wrote. Chinese interest in endangered animal products has nothing supernatural about it. These products are erroneously believed to work through natural means, not supernatural ones.
        • (Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @08:01PM

          by WillAdams (1424) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:01PM (#189817)

          Fine.

          If one then offered such a Chinese person two rhinoceros horns, one genuine, one fake, each at the same price, which would they choose and why?

          I'm betting that they'd pick and prefer the genuine one.

          I'm also betting that they will choose not to purchase the fake ones --- seems as if the people making the fakes suspect this as well, hence their plan to flood the market, rather than market directly.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:35AM (#190027)

          So what if they don't think it is supernatural? It has no basis in reality, so by definition it is a supernatural belief even if they don't think so.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by tonyPick on Friday May 29 2015, @03:24PM

    by tonyPick (1237) on Friday May 29 2015, @03:24PM (#189697) Homepage Journal

    I would not consider an education which allowed one to retain an unsupported, superstitious belief about the ``supernatural powers'' of an animal product to be a decent one.

    And would you place that as better or worse than the one where you get told about communicating telepathically with a Jewish zombie carpenter that's his own dad? [nytimes.com].

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:34PM (#189726)

      Or where some members of a board of education (people responsible for ensuring a good education) are attempting to force evolution out of text books.

      There appears to be no correlation between education and superstition.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 29 2015, @06:56PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @06:56PM (#189787) Journal

        There is a correlation, it's just FAR short of perfect. And I'm not aware of any country with an education system that emphasizes evaluation of the evidence.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday May 29 2015, @10:56PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Friday May 29 2015, @10:56PM (#189883)

      Man, the frustrating thing is that I'm in my 30s and I'm too haggard to look half as douchy as he does. I seriously had to buy a ball cap to wear backwards to get people to start wanting to punch me in the face again. Wonder what his secret is.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday May 29 2015, @07:10PM

    by Nuke (3162) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:10PM (#189794)

    I would not consider an education which allowed ... superstitious belief about ... an animal product to be a decent one.

    1) It is not a superstitious belief. It is a medical belief. Just as phoney though.

    2) Plenty of "decently" educated people have superstitious beliefs. I was eduated at a uni with impeccable credentials and saw plenty of people with such beliefs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @07:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @07:18PM (#189796)

      1) It is not a superstitious belief. It is a medical belief. Just as phoney though.

      2) Plenty of "decently" educated people have superstitious beliefs. I was eduated at a uni with impeccable credentials and saw plenty of people with such beliefs.

      Do people who believe that name-brand drugs have better efficiacy over generic drugs qualify as superstitious? Where exactly is the line between superstition and just believing in something because you can't really prove it one way or the other and lack the time and resources to run it down for yourself?

      • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:31PM

        by Nuke (3162) on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:31PM (#190084)

        Where exactly is the line between superstition and just believing in something because you can't really prove it

        Easy. Superstition is believing in para-normal powers, ie powers beyond physics. For example believing in ghosts.

        Believing in a physical explanation for something but cannot prove it because you do not have the power/time/equipment to prove it, is not superstition. For example where I live there are frequent brief electrical power cuts. I believe it is a tree somewhere shorting the overhead wires. The electricty company won't investigate because they say the cuts are within their charter tolerances. So I cannot prove my belief that it is caused by trees, but that does not make my belief a superstition.

        I believe (!) that people's belief in rhino horns falls in the latter category, something to do with its chemistry.

    • (Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @08:08PM

      by WillAdams (1424) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:08PM (#189822)

      See other comment where I ask whether the people in question would accept the fakes or no.

      Ages ago, my mother wanted the antlers from my first buck to grind up to make a medicinal product --- when I demurred and instead told her that we could look up the chemical consituents of the antlers and use the raw chemicals instead and that it would be just as efficacious, she became agitated in a manner unique to Korean moms and would not accept even the idea of the substitute.

      It's superstition. If it wasn't they'd look up the relevant chemicals and have that compounded by their local pharmacist since that would be less expensive.

      I grew up in a culture akin to the one in question (and which shares many beliefs) --- I was delivered by a midwife who declared, ``When I was young, we wouldn't keep a baby like this, we'd put him on the hill for the wolves.'' --- to reiterate, it's superstitious nonsense, and the sooner it can be stamped out by a decent education, the sooner the world will be a better place.