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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @12:36PM
The problem is, the people buying rhinoceros horn have bought into this mythology where it has supernatural properties.
The one thing one can hope will come of this is that it will force the poachers to keep such good records so as to prove the bloody provenance of their supply that it will make prosecution easier.
The way to fix this sort of thing is the same as for most other human problems, a decent education and the reasonable opportunity for a decent lifestyle.
Put the poachers to work guarding the herds (and allow a reasonable amount of hunting to cull the herds --- tags should be issued on a fair and open basis which includes a chance for locals to have an opportunity to get them --- outsiders who get tags should be required to put in a reasonable bit of sweat equity guarding the herds or otherwise caring for them).
(Score: 1) by jpkunst on Friday May 29 2015, @12:46PM
My impression is that rhinos are almost extinct, so even if the poaching stops, "culling the herds" will not be necessary for a long time to come.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Friday May 29 2015, @12:57PM
I think the idea us that most poachers will just go to a store and buy the fakes. Good quality reproductions have destroyed a lot of previously lucrative markets in rare objects, no reason to believe it won't do the same here. It is not like the poachers can start up a rhino horn cartel.
With the majority of people being conned, or honesting thinking it is compatible, into buying fake horns the market should drop out and make poaching unprofitable.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:14PM
If that doesn't work, we could always poach the poachers, see I've a superstitious belief about poacher parts, they bring me luck. I only want the fingers with rings, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:49PM
There's a market for human body parts in Africa so you're actually fairly correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @02:06PM
Okay, so uncircumcised penisis then. Got it.
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Friday May 29 2015, @03:35PM
Dian Fossey did this and look how it ended [wikipedia.org] for her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @09:01PM
Nonono, not fingers; human horn [theinfosphere.org] is the aphrodisiac. Just remember, you want the lower horn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:42PM
Bringing down a charging wino can be dangerous.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 29 2015, @02:09PM
This.
Poachers just want to make money. If a person looking to buy rhino horn can't tell the difference then what does the poacher care?
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday May 29 2015, @04:27PM
Exactly! If you can make a close enough copy, the poachers will start to sell the fakes instead of the real ones. I mean, the poachers are already doing something illegal. It's not like they will be facing a huge moral dilemma. They are just in it for the money, and if they can make the same amount without having to risk going out into the wild and possibly getting caught, why not? Using the fakes will be cheaper, easier and safer for them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CRCulver on Friday May 29 2015, @01:07PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @02:30PM
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.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Friday May 29 2015, @02:48PM
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
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
> 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
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday May 29 2015, @08:01PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday May 29 2015, @07:02PM
one can hope will come of this is that it will force the poachers to keep such good records so as to prove the bloody provenance of their supply
Faking paper records is even easier than faking rhino horns. No-one will be able to rely on paper records, neither buyers nor law-enforcers.
The way to fix this sort of thing is the same as for most other human problems, a decent education and the reasonable opportunity for a decent lifestyle.
Dream on. What makes you think that educating people stops them being criminals? The characteristics are orthogonal. Educating criminals makes them cleverer criminals. Dr Shipman did not lack an education, nor do the bankers who keep stealing from us.
Put the poachers to work guarding the herds
Yes. Like I have got a fox guarding my hen house right now.
The point is to undermine the market for rhino horn by making people unsure whether they are paying for the real thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:15PM
The records which buyers will expect will be a photograph of a recent newspaper next to the bloody carcass of the rhinoceros --- they want freshness and proof of a dead animal so as to enhance their virility.
(Score: 1) by Translation Error on Friday May 29 2015, @08:51PM
Buyers insisting the poachers present thorough documentation of their illegal activities? Yes, I'm sure that will go over well.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday May 29 2015, @01:22PM
Their aim is to mass produce fakes that are indistinguishable from real horns...
...but are laced with chemicals known by the State of California to cause impotence and male breast development. That might actually make people think twice before using the stuff. Sadly, there probably aren't enough Rhinos to last until the secondary effect of removing horn-users from the gene pool cuts in.
Sorry. That was an unethical thing to suggest. I fully and unreservedly withdraw the comment. However, anything else risks having unintended consequences and actually expanding the market, as already suggested. Also, a glut of fake (and therefore perfectly legal to import) horns is just going to make it harder for customs officers etc. to pick up the real thing.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 29 2015, @01:59PM
I think we should do to them what Saudi Arabia does to their thieves - all people who believe that rhino horn has super powers should have their noses and penises both cut off permanently.
And I do NOT withdraw my comment. There are too many goddamn people in this world, and culling the more stupid would be a good first start in saving the planet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @03:05PM
should have their noses and penises both cut off permanently.
Please elaborate on how one gets their nose or penis cut of non-permantently and to what purpose one would effect this.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 29 2015, @03:23PM
They were able to reattach John Bobbitt's [wikipedia.org] penis after it had been cut off by his angry wife. What I am proposing is to destroy or permanently relocate from their previous owners the removed noses and penises.
Also, scientific fun-fact -- the fearsome Bobbitt worm [youtube.com] was named after John Bobbitt, for obvious reasons.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday May 30 2015, @11:44AM
What I am proposing is to destroy or permanently relocate from their previous owners the removed noses and penises.
I'm sure that the dried and powdered penis of a rhino poacher would be every bit as medically effective as rhino horn, so the operation should be nicely self-funding...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TLA on Friday May 29 2015, @02:42PM
The reason why rhino horn is so expensive is manifold, not least the fact that it is scarce.
This would be akin to flooding the market with diamonds or gold - either way you're meeting demand which drives the price DOWN. With this tech, without actually telling buyers which they're getting - real or fake - you're effectively selling them a block of lead with gold paint on it or a bag of cubic zirconia, only a fake rhino horn will be a lot harder to spot without access to a GCMS. This is just fucking genius. Sell a fake to the wrong guy, and it won't be the rhinos that are endangered - it'll be the poacher.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday May 29 2015, @03:39PM
Humm...did the development of cubic zirconia in the 1970s ruin the DeBeers business model?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by TLA on Friday May 29 2015, @03:51PM
no, because an industry sprang up almost immediately dedicated to letting people know whether they were rocking real or flaunting fake. There is also a certification process which means that every genuine cut diamond over a certain size (0.18ct IIRC, up to just over 1ct) now is accompanied by a paper certificate with a serial number which is also laser etched on the stone's girdle.
Somehow I don't think Joe Rhinohornsmuggler will be particularly bothered unless he's smuggling for himself, whether the chunk of nail he's got is off a mammal or out of a 3D printer.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @03:55PM
No but synthetic diamond is.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/diamond-producers-form-group-to-fight-synthetics-1432743731 [wsj.com]
Diamond != cubic zirconia anyone with a jewelers loop can tell you that. But you can not tell the difference between a synthetic and the real deal.
They are in fact moving very quickly to buy up companies that make it and put in measures to make it harder to enter the market (for the customer of course). Mined diamonds cost about 40x of synthetic.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Friday May 29 2015, @02:55PM
I read an article a few days ago about a specific rhino which had been tranquilized by poachers, had its horns hacked off, and then was left to die via the gaping wounds on its head. It was discovered still alive and saved by the locals and veterinarians, but with extensive surgery.
It struck me that if young rhinos were captured by authorities and had their horns preemptively surgically removed by veterinarians so that less danger were posed to the rhinos (and then the horns destroyed), the poachers would have no reason to go after those rhinos any more. Granted, it is ethically questionable, but if it serves the greater good of keeping rhinos from going extinct until such time that the silly superstitions regarding the horns can be ended, isn't it worth considering?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:16PM
It struck me that if young rhinos were captured by authorities and had their horns preemptively surgically removed by veterinarians so that less danger were posed to the rhinos (and then the horns destroyed), the poachers would have no reason to go after those rhinos any more.
(1) Horns grow back. Removing the root would probably kill the animal.
(2) The trick is to poison the horn, dye the interior and make sure everybody in the nearby villages know you did it. [pri.org]
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday May 29 2015, @06:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @06:52PM
> although the knowledge of dyeing and poisoning needs to be spread to the Chinese markets which are the demand for the horns.
A couple of people getting sick will cause that knowledge to spread rapidly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:55PM
Make the fake horns out of melamine.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Friday May 29 2015, @04:25PM
If it works, and the rhino is brought back from being endangered, I know something that will be endangered by that.
The budgets of the charities that were mentioned. (Yes, I'm a cynical sort. Not for profit doesn't mean "for free".)
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 29 2015, @08:03PM
Unlikely, there's plenty more (endangered) fish in the sea for them to raise money against.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday May 29 2015, @04:41PM
All this will do is cause verifiably real horns to become even more profitable. Which will lead to increased poaching.
Then there is going to be the "but I thought it was fake Rhino horn" defense when someone is arrested further down the supply chain. They would have plausible dependability.
Good idea and admirable goal but useless in the real world.
Its likely going to make the developers rich even if they can't pull it off.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:22PM
> All this will do is cause verifiably real horns to become even more profitable. Which will lead to increased poaching.
Has the existence of counterfeit sports memorabilia driven up the price of legitimate memorabilia?
The NFL doesn't seem to think so. [dailycaller.com]
> Then there is going to be the "but I thought it was fake Rhino horn" defense when someone is arrested further down the supply chain.
If you read the article the only difference between the real and fake are the presence of pollutants. How will they prove to the cops that they aren't real?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday May 29 2015, @07:18PM
All this will do is cause verifiably real horns to become even more profitable
How will they be verifiable? Bear in mind this is an illegal underworld activity. No-one can trust anything, certainly not any "verification" documents.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @06:19PM
Why not raise the rhinos on farms the way we do with other four-legged creatures? Sure, it would be expensive as all hell, but it would be profitable and sustainable.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:59AM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:35PM
South African here. (We have something like IIRC 95% of the rhino in Africa.)
We already do that. In fact we have many, many tonnes of rhino horn in storage (some cut off when the rhino died, some confiscated from poachers and some from times and places where they were pre-emptively cut off to discourage poaching) and could easily flood the market with the existing horn sitting in expensive guarded storage.
The problem is CITES. They refuse to allow legal trade in any horn whatsoever, thereby suppressing supply and creating massive profit for illegal trade. African governments have been campaigning for the simple and effective solution for years but environmental groups lobby to ensure that their ideology stays in power, even if it means extinction for the animals.
Let me give you an example of how big the problem is. It is legal to hunt rhino given that you get a permit. We actually farm* large game to supply the various reserves and hunting-oriented game farms with genetic diversity and larger numbers. I've personally been on a lion farm not far from here. You can cut off the head of a rhino and mount it on your wall, no problems, and you can take that trophy just about anywhere in the world. But cut the horn off your legal trophy, and suddenly you're a big bad poacher. People are in prison for just that.
* "Canned" hunting is, however, not allowed. No taking a hand-reared lion to the wild for some sucker-hunter to shoot two weeks later.