On October 26 2011 18:17 Sasquatch wrote: I have no problem with people wanting to eat shark fin soup, but currently it is being harvested in a completely insane and unsustainable manner. Greed tends to ruin any good thing.
For reference, here's a piece Gordon Ramsay did on shark fin harvesting:
Shark Fins have no taste. They eat it for stupid reasons. Why are you killing a species for something that has no flavor value.
Only pre-conceived health notions plus to showcase your wealth.
I know you won't take my word for it but it really is something else, you should have it before commenting, it's pretty good.
Your just tasting the soup stock. the fin has no taste it would be just as good as if you had generic noodles in the soup.
Don't try explaining it to him, he won't understand. Might as well try explaining it to a wall. He'll continue yapping about how good it tastes for the rest of the thread.
You make seem like I am lying to you
And you are assuming i have never tried shark fin soup.
I am Chinese and ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT this. In fact, I want Shark Fin to be BANNED WORLDWIDE. Although it does worry me that this ban would only create more of an incentive for them to hunt sharks. This may turn into another Drug trade issue.
Sharks are a critical part of the ocean ecosystem.
On October 28 2011 03:02 TheMob wrote: I am Chinese and ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT this. In fact, I want Shark Fin to be BANNED WORLDWIDE. Although it does worry me that this ban would only create more of an incentive for them to hunt sharks. This may turn into another Drug trade issue.
Sharks are a critical part of the ocean ecosystem.
-disclaimer- I am an environmentalist.
I'm not an environmentalist and I still fully agree with what you said.
On October 27 2011 03:04 zobz wrote: Fishing is an inherently brutal process to the fish. Why single out commercial fishing? Every time you put a hook of any kind in the water it's something you're most likely going to have to rip out of the fish's lips if not its throat, and I have personally never seen a fisherman stab his catch in the brain before filetting it, or for that matter before gutting it and throwing it back in the water.
This shark issue is just arbitrary sensationalism, trying to make it out as if this is so much worse than your usual case, even though it is exactly the same, in order to get a foothold in promoting greater empathy with what we eat in general. The only way it makes any sense is if you go all the way, and illegalize eating meat, which is inherently cruel to animals. The only thing holding you back I'm sure, is that it's politically impossible, as it well should be.
I am a human being, I dominate my environment because I have a faculty which beasts lack: cognition. I dominate my environment because it makes me happy, and the environment has no purpose until I form a desire and a plan for it, anyway. I do not feel guilty for using my mind, for using the products of the minds of others to create my environment out of the default of nature, an environment which I find comfortable, and which grants me even greater control. I will not feel guilty for eating, even though it is a destructive force - destructive of what? Nature, defined only as that which existed before man did anything to change it, is not sacred. Man is not an evil force on the world of the default. He is merely a force who deems some aspects of reality good and others evil as befits his quest for prosperity and happiness.
It is just an idea too complicated for most people to grasp, they just won't be bothered. That is why we have mysticism, as we have since we lived in caves. Some ideas are of such obvious practical merit that we can't help but live by them, even if we simply won't be bothered to understand them. Love is such an idea, we say it is the most valued human experience of all, and therefore the more indiscriminately we experience it, the better. Wealth is such an idea, we say the greater good is for it to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, so we penalize those who produce it in order to spread it around. Knowledge itself is such an idea, we say that it comes from the Kingdom of Heaven, beyond our realm of existence, and can be attained only by accepting something to be true without asking to be shown evidence. Empathy is such an idea, we say it's an instinct - the only instance of nature's default still operating within human kind - and so it derives its merit.
Freedom, is yet another such idea. It's an idea which applies to humans because we are capable of respecting it, of respecting each other. Because it's the foundation of an individual and one's creative potential, which must be allowed to flourish in order for others to benefit from it. But we apply it to animals because, well, we're stupid. And then in protection of the freedom of animals from human harm (although good luck trying to keep those same animals from eating each other) we restrict the rights of those humans who enjoy eating too much, because of course the value of the freedom of a criminal is negligable.
Human beings do not owe anything to those living things which cannot pick up even the most underlying fundamentals of nobility: the creation of their own tools for use in subduing their prey. They are impotent to create anything, whatsoever, except approximate copies of themselves, which to this day is the only manner in which they may progress forwards. Why do any of our human values apply to them, except for the human value of their bodies as something useful that can be found in nature, just like wood from trees, rocks from the earth, water from pools? ...What's in it for us?
All your post is ideological crap. It's your own point of view that you somehow have a superiority over your environment that makes it possible (or should i say legitim ?) for you to harvest and dominate nature as you like. In fact, it's a fairly new idea in the history of men. You can eat something while respecting it and acknowledging the utility it has on your life. Criticizing the meat industry doesn't mean we all have to become vegetarians, that's a silly argument. It's like saying : well I don't like the way internet explorer is made, so I'm never gona use internet again.
I think you are the one that can't grasp the idea of life as whole. Despite the great cognitive ability that you are showing us, you cannot grasp the fact that your entire argument is based on the idea that human by nature is suppose to dominate and change nature. Here is the thing : we are tiny, and cannot live if we destroy what permit us to live : our environment.
On October 28 2011 00:41 Harbinger631 wrote: I think it's funny how people think that shark finning or even human existence is meaningful when you compare it to the 6 billion year history of the planet.
One day the sun will burn out, Earth will be an iceball, and no one will care whether or not the sharks were finned or not.
Whether or not the loss of sharks will have an impact on my life is what I'm worried about.
Of course, if humans have some sort of supernatural purpose/responibility towards the Earth then that's another matter, but if all we're talking about is naturalism, then yeah, screw the sharks. It's not important in the long run.
Yes, it's so big so don't do nothing anyway, earth is gona die, so it's okay.... OMG WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THIS. Listen man, you are actually a slave, don't rebell yourself because in 2 billions years the earth will die anyway... your fight is not important in the long run.
On October 27 2011 09:33 Reborn8u wrote: I think humanity has driven enough species out of existence. Even if you lack compassion, it's obvious that we threaten our own existence if we don't change our ways. Totally support the ban, these animals should be treated with more respect.
Here is a list of endangered shark species, there are 201 of them. These animals have existed for millions of years and in just a few generations we are managing to erase them from existence.
on average there's a species going extinct every 20 minutes. If there's a suppl for shark fins there will be a demand regardles of whether it's legal or not, you're just forcing honest people trying to make their living into becoming criminals...
It's not our responsibility to save individual species, or even to avoid destroying them altogether, unless their lack of existence poses some kind of negative consequences for whoever's is gonna be left alive.
There is a species going extinct every 20 minutes Because of humans No, we are not forcing them to become criminals, we are forcing them to not cause extinction. There are plenty of other aquatic animals they can hunt for profit, that don't face extinction. A lot of seafood is being farmed these days. Maybe they should try it.
(Most of us) We have these things called brains, when we use them and really think about our role on this planet, and what an oasis of life this Earth is. Among the vast emptiness of space that surrounds this planet completely devoid of anything that can sustain life. We realize that It IS our responsibility to save species instead of destroying them
"We don't need sharks in the seas for any reason. They eat fish, and we're already over-fishing the Oceans, so overpopulation of fish won't be a problem, most people don't eat actual sharks, they don't compose a large portion of people's diet, so if someone want's to have shark fins there's literally no negative consequence to it other than people in the future not being able to get shark fins..."
This is just such an ignorant statement I'm not even sure how to respond. Are you trolling? Apex predators like sharks are CRUCIAL to a healthy eco system. They weed out the weak and sick, and make sure that the stronger and healthier prey survive into adulthood.
Everything on this planet has a role and co-exists (except humans) their existence has a purpose grander than such small minded thinking can comprehend. The fact that you honestly believe that everything on this planet is just here so we can harvest it until it's gone, leaves me almost speechless. This kind of thinking is EXACTLY what will lead humans to their own self destruction. I feel ashamed that we are even the same species. You need to do some reading kid, because arrogance and ignorance go hand and hand. You clearly are a pile of both, there are mountains of research about the role apex predators fill and their importance. Maybe you should try to learn what you are talking about before you spew the first idiotic thing that comes to mind.
A decade or so ago, scientists re-introduced wolves to Yellow Stone National Park. Humans had eradicated them from the mid-western U.S. It was controversial at the time, a lot of foolish people made terrible arguments about the lack of necessity. Now that they are once again thriving, it is clear to everyone how important they are. All of the herds of grazing animals have become overall healthier, and are maintaining sustainable populations. They have brought balance. The reproduction of the wolves' prey is being kept in check, the grazing herds can't just stand around all day doing nothing and making babies. They are being chased by wolf packs and forced to stay on the move. The weak don't survive to create weak offspring. Also, many scavenger animals are thriving again because of the carcasses being left. Ecosystems are incredibly complex, it's not about "what can they do for us" They do things for us that are so indirect we don't even realize it.
Do you realize that the reason this earth has an atmosphere and breathable oxygen is because microscopic organisms in the ocean were performing photosynthesis for billions of years, of which oxygen is a byproduct. All the oxygen then floated to the surface and accumulated creating the biosphere your breathing right now? If you didn't realize this would you also say about them "it's just plankton who cares if it goes extinct?"
Would you just pull a part out of your car engine, when you didn't understand it's role? Then jump on the highway and try to drive to Miami. No, because the car might run for a little while, but that part might have been part of your cooling system. So now 20 miles down the road your engine is catching fire.
Bottom line, our generation was born unto a dying world. Yea, that's right, if things keep going the way they are then it isn't a question of "if we will all die" it's a question of "how long till it happens". Humanities destruction of earths environment has started a timer, that ends with our own extinction. Problem is we don't understand how to read the clock, we don't know how much time we have to try and fix what we've done.
Yeah, sharks might be just a tiny piece of the overall issue. But it's the thinking (or complete lack of) behind this behavior that I find so disturbing.
I just want to quote it once more because it`s a really good post and it shouldn`t be lost in the storm of rackety ignorance and expressions of unspeakable shortsightedness.
Oh no... he's ashamed to be of the same species as me... how terrible.
Maybe he should tell all those studying how to cure cancer, aids and all other diseases to stop, because it makes us live far too long.
Or maybe he should go around and tell every family that they can only have one child. I understand he lives in the world of rainbows and lollipops, but the human population is growing, and to make room for ourselves we eliminate other species... It's just the way things are.
Also, you're turning criminals out of honest people by making shark-finning illegal, if your father was a shark-finner and your grandfather was also a shark fisher/hunter, then it's all you know how to do, what the hell would you do? Would you stop hunting sharks and not be able to feed your kids or would you disobey the law and continue to sell shark-fins at even higher prices? I betting on the second one.
If the extinction of sharks would in fact bring about a cataclysm for the humans, then I'm all for trying to stop it in a method that's not too wasteful of our resources, but I just don't think that this is possible.
edit:
and we don't have a responsibility to save anything but ourselves. We are animals like any other animals.
It's a double standard to first blame someone for believing that human well-being is more important than animal well-being, just because we're humans, but then to go ahead and claim that humans have some kind of added responsibilities over those of the rest of the animals.
The only thing you seem to get out of his post is that ... you might have been insulted. So you try to defend a completely wrong position simply because you are too weak and vain to admit or acknowledge that you were wrong.
nope.
the only place I addressed my being insulted is in the very first line.
The flaws in your reasoning are too numerous to mention. You simply don`t understand that we are not the only fucking specie on this planet and that our very existence is dependant on other species of this planet. You also don`t understand the value of bio-diversity. The genetic diversity on our planet and it`s value far exceeds anything that an egoistic, separatist thought like yours could imagine.
Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
As for me not understanding the value of bio-diversity, I will admit, that I don't. I have been proven wrong in this topic regarding ecosystem related biology, and I have since done some more research. Still it doesn't change point of view regarding this situation, it's not absolutely obviousl that the extinction of sharks will cause some kind of catastrophic event, although it's possible.
It's just another risk, there's a ton of them, it's nto a matter of princiiple anymore it's simply a matter of cost/benefit analysis. The truth is that while demand for shark fins exists it will be very hard to avoid them getting killed, and the harder we make it to successfully acquire shark fins, the more expensive they're gonna ,get and the more profitable it will be for people to succesfully acquire them.
So with that in mind, knowing that it's just another risk, how much are we willing to pay/sacrifice in order to avoid sharks going extinct? I dunno, I haven't researched to the point that I could give any real estimate, and I don't know if such quantitative data even exists. However what we know historically about the majority of prohibitions is not only that they have been ridiculously expensive, and promoted illegal behavior amongst those who would have otherwise been law abiding citizens (thus diluting the moral power of the law,) so it is my believe (empowered by only little understanding of the biological aspect of this issue, but imo considerable understanding of issues regarding prohibitional policies,) that this will be expensive to successfully enforce.
People like you seriously need to fucking learn that our care for other species and ecosystem on this planet is vital to our long term well-being. As long as such thinking remains a standard way of going about life of the majority, then we are all more or less fucked.
Like I said, i agree that we need to worry about our future, however, I disagree that we need to worry about animals for the sake of worrying about animals. Animals don't worry about us, or about other animals... As a human society we first and foremost serve other humans.
I agree that we are dependent on the ecosystem, and the ecosystem is dependent on the species that exist in it, that's why like I said we need to do cost-benefit analysis of preventing extinction of particular species.
To turn it into an argument of morals and emotion liek you're doing is simply to argue a strawman.
E: Maybe you think and behave like an animal because that`s what you have come to believe in regard to your identity. Regardless of whether you claim humanity is animal or not, our intelligence far exceeds that of any known animal species. As a result, we are dominant species and we do have, through ignorance and blindness, the capability to destroy ourselves - thus, we have a responsibility. Not to mention ethical reasons which you refuse to even consider because you allowed your ego to brainwash you this much.
I refuse to consider ethical reasons, because the ethical motivations of preserving animals are no where near being on the same level as ethical motivation of preserving humans. Being moral to other humans at least to some degree has to be in our DNA (and in DNA of other species to some extent with respect to members of their own species,) because otherwise we would have simply died out.
"ethics" with respect to animals are blurry, as we've been killing animals for thousands of years, for food, for tools, for ivory/teeth/horns, for fun... etc.
As a dominant species we have responsibility for all other species.
No we don't. We have a responsibility only to our own species. Species compete with each other for survival. This isn't evident anymore, because we're so good at manipulating our environment that the other species simply can not co-exist with us, but it doesn't make it any less true.
We are the most potent part of the ecosystem and if this potency is not accompanied by equal responsibility, then the ecosystem will begin to falter and ultimately, either collapse or flung the human part out of it. Not to mention that it is us who are directly responsible for the sharks extinction threat.
"flung the human part out of it." Sounds liek some mythology...
as for the rest of it, I agree we need to protect the ecosystem, because we need it to survive effectively, and yes we do have significant power in changing the ecosystem, so we need to be careful ourselves...
If you want to be an environmentalist and , hold fund-raisers, and invest your own money to go out into the rain forests to try to protect or study endangered creatures... It's your choice to do this, but you will find that while a lot of people will say that things like extinction of some random animal they'v never heard of is terrible, they will not be willing to spend money to protect them, because it's not as important to them as their own well-being, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Now, obviously if credible research comes out that the extinction of sharks will be the end of the world as we know it... Well then yeah, everyone's well-being is at stake, and it becomes fair to do something like tax the people a little extra to help enforce anti-shark-killing regulations and etc.
Again, few things are more cowardly than trying to defend a completely wrong position for the sake of ego.
On October 28 2011 02:58 Blasterion wrote: I know you won't take my word for it but it really is something else, you should have it before commenting, it's pretty good.
Yeah dude, I've had it, and yeah it is good, but it's not SOOMFGWOWGOOD that it's worth destroying ecosystems everywhere.
On October 28 2011 02:58 Blasterion wrote: I know you won't take my word for it but it really is something else, you should have it before commenting, it's pretty good.
Yeah dude, I've had it, and yeah it is good, but it's not SOOMFGWOWGOOD that it's worth destroying ecosystems everywhere.
of course not, time and time again I said I wasn't against the ban, but I'll definitely miss it
Stupid laws, should be allowed to eat it, sell it, trade it. Just like some towns here in texas are trying to ban horse meat. Horse meat is soooo good, much better than cow.
Same thing for DOG meat, that is banned in lots of places, (believe in large cities in korea dog meat is banned now) but in reality it is just another animal like cow, or fish. But then again cow meat is not eaten in some cultures due to a cow being the source of milk, which babies drink. In some places in the world it is illegal to eat fish even!!! Just culture thing and it can get retarded i guess...
On October 28 2011 04:01 Blasterion wrote: of course not, time and time again I said I wasn't against the ban, but I'll definitely miss it
Me too, but maybe if everyone gets the ball rolling on sustainable fishing, we won't have to miss it for as long as if we just let things keep going as they are now and end up with extinct fisheries. Get going!
On October 28 2011 04:07 Deadlyfish wrote: I'm against it. People should eat what they wanna eat. doesnt bother me.
I dont really care if the sharks are extinct anyways to be honest.
it's kinda sad if you don't care that a apex predator in ocean ecosystems become extinct, which WILL adversely affect humans living somewhere else in one way or another.
you'd probably get more angry if your favourite unit got a 1 second nerf to build time.
On October 28 2011 03:57 Kiarip wrote: Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
When I read this, I thought my head was about to explode.
I talked about this with a few Chinese friends over lunch, and they all seemed to agree that a ban on shark fishing should absolutely be put in place until the shark population is back to decent levels and better fishing regulations are introduced.
The cultural aspect of should not even factor into the discussion until such conditions are met.
On October 28 2011 04:07 Deadlyfish wrote: I'm against it. People should eat what they wanna eat. doesnt bother me.
I dont really care if the sharks are extinct anyways to be honest.
it's kinda sad if you don't care that a apex predator in ocean ecosystems become extinct, which WILL adversely affect humans living somewhere else in one way or another.
you'd probably get more angry if your favourite unit got a 1 second nerf to build time.
aside fromt the shark topic, nerfing marines would make me pretty angry
On October 28 2011 03:57 Kiarip wrote: Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
When I read this, I thought my head was about to explode.
I talked about this with a few Chinese friends over lunch, and they all seemed to agree that a ban on shark fishing should absolutely be put in place until the shark population is back to decent levels and better fishing regulations are introduced.
The cultural aspect of should not even factor into the discussion until such conditions are met.
Well you're already making an assumption that we need fishing regulations
Also, I hoep I didn't sound stereotypical (I knwo that I did but I hope you understood what I meant,) I'm not saying that all chinese people think that having sharkfin soup is more important that the genetic diversity that existence of sharks provides, but some do.
They also pay a lot of money to the shark fins. The amount of money that's seemingly wasted on the sharkfins (something that has no practical, but only cultural utility, the price of which has been driven up only by the lack of supply, and not by its intrinsic value to a human being,) is a figure to keep in mind when you you're going to estimate how much it's going to cost you to keep this industry under control of state regulation.
On October 28 2011 04:02 moonLiteNite wrote: Stupid laws, should be allowed to eat it, sell it, trade it. Just like some towns here in texas are trying to ban horse meat. Horse meat is soooo good, much better than cow.
Same thing for DOG meat, that is banned in lots of places, (believe in large cities in korea dog meat is banned now) but in reality it is just another animal like cow, or fish. But then again cow meat is not eaten in some cultures due to a cow being the source of milk, which babies drink. In some places in the world it is illegal to eat fish even!!! Just culture thing and it can get retarded i guess...
Well, the thing is that many shark species are on the verge of extinction. That can't be said about horses or dogs and therefore your argument is invalid.
On October 28 2011 03:57 Kiarip wrote: Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
When I read this, I thought my head was about to explode.
I talked about this with a few Chinese friends over lunch, and they all seemed to agree that a ban on shark fishing should absolutely be put in place until the shark population is back to decent levels and better fishing regulations are introduced.
The cultural aspect of should not even factor into the discussion until such conditions are met.
Well you're already making an assumption that we need fishing regulations
Also, I hoep I didn't sound stereotypical (I knwo that I did but I hope you understood what I meant,) I'm not saying that all chinese people think that having sharkfin soup is more important that the genetic diversity that existence of sharks provides, but some do.
They also pay a lot of money to the shark fins. The amount of money that's seemingly wasted on the sharkfins (something that has no practical, but only cultural utility, the price of which has been driven up only by the lack of supply, and not by its intrinsic value to a human being,) is a figure to keep in mind when you you're going to estimate how much it's going to cost you to keep this industry under control of state regulation.
First of all, I am not making any assumption saying that we need fishing regulations. There is quite an extensive history of overfishing endangering species, which makes the need for fishing regulations quite obvious to anyone who appreciates the importance of preserving balance and biodiversity (that does not include you, obviously, but includes the overwhelming majority of people with a decent degree of education in the matter).
Second of all, I fail to see how the shark fin industry mattes in the grand scheme of things. Shark fins are a luxury good that anyone can easily survive without, and people making a livelihood out of shark finning are certainly eligible for unemployment benefits and are free to find other employment. Please do realize that we are not talking about a ban on wheat or chicken here, it's a rather niche and localized market.
On October 28 2011 03:57 Kiarip wrote: Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
Who are you to tell me I can't force my values on other people? Oh look, relativism is silly.
A culture can have it's own values, but it can also be wrong. I would argue a cultural view that promoted an environmentally and economically unsustainable path to be one worth reconsidering the 'rightness' of.
On October 28 2011 03:57 Kiarip wrote: Well the genetic value of diversity doesn't seem to far exceed the value of the Chinese to have themselves some shark fin soup, who are you to try to force your values onto other people?
When I read this, I thought my head was about to explode.
I talked about this with a few Chinese friends over lunch, and they all seemed to agree that a ban on shark fishing should absolutely be put in place until the shark population is back to decent levels and better fishing regulations are introduced.
The cultural aspect of should not even factor into the discussion until such conditions are met.
Well you're already making an assumption that we need fishing regulations
Also, I hoep I didn't sound stereotypical (I knwo that I did but I hope you understood what I meant,) I'm not saying that all chinese people think that having sharkfin soup is more important that the genetic diversity that existence of sharks provides, but some do.
They also pay a lot of money to the shark fins. The amount of money that's seemingly wasted on the sharkfins (something that has no practical, but only cultural utility, the price of which has been driven up only by the lack of supply, and not by its intrinsic value to a human being,) is a figure to keep in mind when you you're going to estimate how much it's going to cost you to keep this industry under control of state regulation.
First of all, I am not making any assumption saying that we need fishing regulations. There is quite an extensive history of overfishing endangering species, which makes the need for fishing regulations quite obvious to anyone who appreciates the importance of preserving balance and biodiversity (that does not include you, obviously, but includes the overwhelming majority of people with a decent degree of education in the matter).
Second of all, I fail to see how the shark fin industry mattes in the grand scheme of things. Shark fins are a luxury good that anyone can easily survive without, and people making a livelihood out of shark finning are certainly eligible for unemployment benefits and are free to find other employment. Please do realize that we are not talking about a ban on wheat or chicken here, it's a rather niche and localized market.
LOL... so now I lack education. Overfishing preditor isn't the same as over-fishing something way lower on the food chain, and also biodiversity doesn't have any importance or value simply for teh sake of bio-diversity, it only does if the lack of bio-diversity will have negative consequences. Then you need the measure the average loss due to these negative consequences, and decide how much are you willing to spend/sacrifice in order to try to avoid these negative consequences.
You're taking an absolutist approach here which is absolutely not applicable. My point is that it's a matter of cost/benefit analysis not of principle, you seem to be attacking my principle.
... I understand that it's a ban on a niche and local market but that doesn't guarantee that the ban will be effective, it will simply increase the incentives of finning, because the demand for this product is largely inelastic.
Who are you to tell me I can't force my values on other people? Oh look, relativism is silly.
A culture can have it's own values, but it can also be wrong. I would argue a cultural view that promoted an environmentally and economically unsustainable path to be one worth reconsidering the 'rightness' of.
Well generally speaking it's not considered ok to enforce values on other people because then others may try to enforce their values on you. Of course there's no such rule. So I wasn't using absolute relativism, I was using relative relativism... I'm sure you're not suggesting that we all go attack china and beat up their people until they change their mind on sharkfin soups.
Also, enforcing these values gonna cost money... ironically... buying shark-fins also costs significant money... do you see where I'm going with this? As a general rule it's worth to look at the monetary flow that fuels the demand for a product when you're considering the costs of prohibiting said product, the two are related.
EPT
