Tradition no more creates permission than it creates obligation. "We've always done it this way" isn't a reason why anybody has to do things that way, but it also isn't a reason why anyone should be allowed to keep doing things that way.

Everything should be allowed unless there is reason to disallow it. If there is reason to disallow it, appeal to tradition is not a sound counterargument.

"That's racist!" is an empty rhetorical device in such a context and people saying that should be ignored or counter-shamed.


(As an aside, in this particular case driving the practice into rural areas would still be a beneficial outcome, because it is the dense concentration of lots of humans with lots of animals that creates the conditions necessary for pandemics. A disease jumping from animal to human is both much less likely and far easier to contain in situations where a few rural people are keeping a few exotic animals).

We're always done it this way" isn't a reason why anybody has to do things that way, but it also isn't a reason why anyone should be allowed to keep doing things that way. — Pfhorrest

Agreed

Everything should be allowed unless there is reason to disallow it. If there is reason to disallow it, appeal to tradition is not a sound counterargument. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. There's an added component here though.. Outsiders who want to embrace all cultures, may say something like "It's their tradition. Thus, it is not just an appeal to tradition, but an appeal to toleration of other people's tradition. That is a different phenomena. It is the super tolerance of others' traditions that would be against this.

Here's the kicker- toleration is almost always seen as a good thing. Yet here is a case where toleration is leading to a bad consequence. And it's not so cut-and-dry like the toleration of a culture that is oppressing another one, or toleration of ritual murder or something. Certainly animals are being harmed, but that might be considered less important than certain cultures not having their traditional values valued. Outsiders who see themselves as multicultural defenders might insist this disallowance is intolerance and small-mindedness to not consider other cultural practices as valid behavior. These multicultural defenders might be saying you are "othering" the foreign culture.

(As an aside, in this particular case driving the practice into rural areas would still be a beneficial outcome, because it is the dense concentration of lots of humans with lots of animals that creates the conditions necessary for pandemics. A disease jumping from animal to human is both much less likely and far easier to contain in situations where a few rural people are keeping a few exotic animals). — Pfhorrest

Agreed

Also, on a slight tangent, others might defend the exotic animals trade and markets similar to defending coal. Shutting down the trade, just like shutting down coal mining and coal plants, would be negatively effecting the economy. Are economic considerations more important for the exotic animal traders and sellers?

@Bitter Crank@Benkei@TheMadFool@180 Proof@ssu@tim wood@Hanover@Punshhh@unenlightened
Any thoughts?

So we are living in an age of multiculturalism. Most would agree that this is a good thing. — schopenhauer1

Not me. I have always said that the idea of "multiculturalism" is simply capitulation in the effort to maintain modern democracy. Tribalism and modernism do not go together. And the slogan "diversity is our strength" certainly deserves a kind of Nobel prize for being the dumbest one ever conceived.

Not me. I have always said that the idea of "multiculturalism" is simply capitulation in the effort to maintain modern democracy. Tribalism and modernism do not go together. And the slogan "diversity is our strength" certainly deserves a kind of Nobel prize for being the dumbest one ever conceived. — Nobeernolife

I see no problems and only benefits in exchanging cultural ideas. Why would that be a negative? The only exchanges that would be bad would ones that lead to harm for the individual or society (like hate groups or groups that oppress other ones for example). That would be a bad cultural exchange.

Here's the kicker- toleration is almost always seen as a good thing. Yet here is a case where toleration is leading to a bad consequence. And it's not so cut-and-dry like the toleration of a culture that is oppressing another one, or toleration of ritual murder or something. Certainly animals are being harmed, but that might be considered less important than certain cultures not having their traditional values valued. Outsiders who see themselves as multicultural defenders might insist this disallowance is intolerance and small-mindedness to not consider other cultural practices as valid behavior. These multicultural defenders might be saying you are "othering" the foreign culture. — schopenhauer1

"Seen as" maybe, but toleration is definitely not always a good thing, as anyone will admit when pressed. You gave some nice cut-and-dry examples there, like ritual murder; we generally don't think it's good to tolerate violence. Your example of tolerating a culture oppressing another is actually called the "paradox of tolerance", in that we must not tolerate (certain kinds of ) intolerance.

The correct approach to being tolerant and multicultural etc is simply to not disallow things just because they are different. People from different cultures can continue to do things their way all they want... unless something can be shown harmful about them, just like we should be doing within our own cultures. "It's not our tradition" is not a good reason to disallow different customs, but "it's their tradition" is also not a good reason to allow any custom.

I see no problems and only benefits in exchanging cultural ideas. Why would that be a negative? The only exchanges that would be bad would ones that lead to harm for the individual or society (like hate groups or groups that oppress other ones for example). That would be a bad cultural exchange. — schopenhauer1

I see no problems with with "exchanging" cultural ideas either. My comment was in remark to mass immigration of non-integrating people, and cultural relativism. This is the context in which I see "multiculturalism" bandied about most often. If you are just talking about exchanging ideas, sure, that is fine.

I see no problems with with "exchanging" cultural ideas either. My comment was in remark to mass immigration of non-integrating people, and cultural relativism. This is the context in which I see "multiculturalism" bandied about most often. If you are just talking about exchanging ideas, sure, that is fine. — Nobeernolife

This is a separate argument. This is about the toleration of cultural practices simply due to the fact that it is someone else's tradition and it should be respected, is the correct view if that cultural practice (even inadvertently) leads to mass harm.

The correct approach to being tolerant and multicultural etc is simply to not disallow things just because they are different. People from different cultures can continue to do things their way all they want... unless something can be shown harmful about them, just like we should be doing within our own cultures. "It's not our tradition" is not a good reason to disallow different customs, but "it's their tradition" is also not a good reason to allow any custom. — Pfhorrest

Okay, let's switch this up. In America, guns are known to be harmful. Thousands of deaths occur from accidental deaths from guns. Should they be banned completely? I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here. We know some amount of deaths will occur from guns, but it is a cultural practice nonetheless for many to own, carry, and fire guns. It is part of people's way-of-life. Should their way-of-life be altered from an outside governmental entity because some harm comes from accidental deaths?

I guess the question is where the line is drawn, who gets to control the cultural practices, etc.

Whether or not the harm of guns is sufficient grounds to ban them is a contingent question, just as is the question of whether or not the harm from wet markets is sufficient grounds to ban them. It's not completely straightforward in either case that the answer is "yes", and I'm not assuming an answer to either of them in either direction. But if the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then "but my tradition!" is no rebuttal.

But if the answer to either of those questions is "yes", then "but my tradition!" is no rebuttal. — Pfhorrest

Yes, this is often invoked for both cases. Where is the line drawn then? Who gets to draw the line? When can one culture tell another one what to do? Is it being culturally insensitive and when does that not matter anymore?

This is a separate argument. This is about the toleration of cultural practices simply due to the fact that it is someone else's tradition and it should be respected, is the correct view if that cultural practice (even inadvertently) leads to mass harm. — schopenhauer1

I would fundamentally agree with that.... unless you want to bring the alien cultural practises into your own society.
Of course there are *some* cultural practises you might want to discourage everywhere, such as cannibalism in New Guinea or hanging of homosexuals in Shariah countries.

I would fundamentally agree with that.... unless you want to bring the alien cultural practises into your own society. — Nobeernolife

Well, the argument is kind of the opposite of that view. Even though toleration is generally good, it may become detrimental if one allows cultural practices that cause mass harm.

Now the question is, what counts as mass harm? Global pandemic probably yes. In almost all cases Westerners would agree, cannibalism and Shariah law that leads to hanging people for their sexual orientation is also bad. However, some people might think that doesn't warrant intervention, as it is not on a mass scale. In other words, some might argue the line is drawn at NIMBY (not in my backyard!). In other words, they might argue "I might not like what you do, I'll even advocate against it, but I won't step in unless this comes to my sphere of life".

That idea might be good or bad though. It provides for maximum toleration, but at the cost of people in the foreign communities being affected (the people being eaten and hanged).

This also plays into the rights of cultural reletavism and Western notions of rights. What are rights in a society that never believed or even known about that idea? If in New Guinea rights are seen differently, or not at all for individuals, who is to say they are wrong in ritual murder or cannibalism? This would be the cultural relativist view at least. And even if they are wrong, the cultural relativist would say, who are foreign peoples to step in to tell them differently? That is the flaw of missionizing for example. Common decency and justice isn't so common, perhaps in some cultures, thus negating that idea of common ideas of ethics and norms as an absolute of human culture or nature.

That idea might be good or bad though. It provides for maximum toleration, but at the cost of people in the foreign communities being affected. — schopenhauer1

I tend to agree with that. That is why I wrote "discourage" and not "prohibit". Concrete example is Afghanistan, where the Americans have been babysitting an unstable government for what, 20 years now. When they leave, the Taliban will introduce literal Shariah. I say the Americans should leave nevertheless.

I tend to agree with that. That is why I wrote "discourage" and not "prohibit". Concrete example is Afghanistan, where the Americans have been babysitting an unstable government for what, 20 years now. When they leave, the Taliban will introduce literal Shariah. I say the Americans should leave nevertheless. — Nobeernolife

Fine, but now we have wet markets that are known vectors/originators for mass pandemics. What action should other countries and China take against these, if anything at all? Is that enough impetus to tell another culture what to do? Is there ever an impetus for this? Chinese medicinal beliefs have been going on for generations. It is part of the culture, tradition, and religion.

I'll invite @Baden@BitconnectCarlos and this thread did spin off from a discussion with @StreetlightX. Even @Isaac can join.

Fine, but now we have wet markets that are known vectors/originators for mass pandemics. What action should other countries and China take against these, if anything at all? Is that enough impetus to tell another culture what to do? Is there ever an impetus for this? Chinese medicinal beliefs have been going on for generations. It is part of the culture, tradition, and religion. — schopenhauer1

Stop supporting China financially by stopping to move our production there. Tax the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics. In others, de-coupling. Another policy where orangeman is fundamentally correct. None of this means interfering internally with China, these are all decisions that we can make.

Stop supporting China financially by stopping to move our production there. Tax the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics. In others, de-coupling. Another policy where orangeman is fundamentally correct. None of this means interfering internally with China, these are all decisions that we can make. — Nobeernolife

Fair enough answer. This of course will cripple parts of the economy. Then we must ask what is more important at that point. People in both China and other countries will suffer. The hope of course is that the practices of the trade would stop sooner than later and then you would have to provide what steps count as stopping the trade. It won't all stop at once. Also this is international. Many countries are contributing to the sale and trade of the animals.

Even @Athena, @boethius and @csalisbury can join!

Even @NOS4A2 can join :roll:

Yes, this is often invoked for both cases. Where is the line drawn then? Who gets to draw the line? When can one culture tell another one what to do? Is it being culturally insensitive and when does that not matter anymore? — schopenhauer1

I'd say it's always ok to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. However, enforcing that is a different story.

For one, I believe that the only legitimate way to transform a moral duty into a legal duty is via a democratic process. There must be a sense in which the people subjected to the law have taken part in its formation. Then of course not all prohibitions are proportionate to the result. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are cultural practices. They have massive negative consequences attached. However, it is to a large extent self-harm, and the response needs to take this into account.

Lastly, the cure mustn't be worse than the disease. Are wet markets an essential source of food for poor people? If so, we need to address that problem first.

Cultural sensibilities can play a role in deciding what is and isn't proportionate. And this is certainly happening even in industrialised countries. Alcohol is again a good example here. It's largely accepted as part of the culture, and this is one reason why there haven't been many attempts to ban it. But I wouldn't class it as a major concern. My view here lines mostly up with that of @Pfhorrest

Lastly, the cure mustn't be worse than the disease. Are wet markets an essential source of food for poor people? If so, we need to address that problem first. — Echarmion

So I did make a distinction for wild animals for food vs. medicinal purposes. Would there be a difference here in its import of banning?

Cultural sensibilities can play a role in deciding what is and isn't proportionate. And this is certainly happening even in industrialised countries. — Echarmion

When does the unintended consequences of a culture's practices become so great as to require outside intervention?

Alcohol is again a good example here. It's largely accepted as part of the culture, and this is one reason why there haven't been many attempts to ban it. — Echarmion

That brings to mind what happened when the quarantine was about to close down liquor stores, and the lines the day before were so long, they lifted that part of it :lol:.

1) Is it right to ask another culture to change its practices, when those practices affect the health of the whole world, or would this be just cultural insensitivity played out as public health missionizing?

It's fine to criticize cultural practices even if the harm were only to be localized to that culture or society.

It's not just about having the idea though; it's about our actual ability to implement it. Sure, we can tell the Chinese to stop eating bats. Maybe the CCP is even on board with the idea, but how does this then filter down to municipal governments? How strict will enforcement be? What is the history of this cultural practice in China and how deeply is in entrenched? Didn't another epidemic originate from a pig?

It's more fruitful to take the focus away from whether something is okay in the abstract to instead ask "how is this issue best addressed in a way that can keep intact the pride and dignity of the culture we're asking the change from and how is it best approached?" and this is just speaking to cultural criticism in general.

Not sure why exactly you want me to participate to this topic, but since I'm here now I'll share my thoughts.

Although there's the basic principle of "how are any laws justifiable at all", which am thankful has gone through the trouble of making a basic sketch, this whole issue is a propaganda sideshow.

Trump has clearly failed, and now he knows it (since the stock market crashed and the economy is shutdown).

So, he's trying to blame the Chinese, but not through any coherent argument, either because he simply can't formulate a coherent argument or because he knows that just leads to emphasizing that a lot of time has passed since the Chinese cover-up (so, if he complains about the Chinese actions in December, it's not really a good argument as he did nothing in January and February).

Of course, the Chinese cover up is damnable and there should be serious investigation and the world should review tools available to coerce the Chinese to not do it again.

Likewise, the Chinese tolerance of trade in "exotic" (i.e. endangered) animals is also damnable, and should also be met with policies by the rest of the world who don't like it to coerced compliance. Even before the pandemic there was a problem of "ghost forests" where nearly all wildlife had been harvested for Chinese wild meet and wild pet markets.

Indeed, it was almost that proverbial time of a broken clock being right twice a day with remark:

Stop supporting China financially by stopping to move our production there. Tax the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics. In others, de-coupling. Another policy where orangeman is fundamentally correct. — Nobeernolife

It's only "almost" because obviously Trump is not actually trying to decouple production from China and engaged in "taxing the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics"; Tump's feud with China has just been a political stunt, to get an easy win by getting a better "deal", which is just small tweaks on the previous deal and changes nothing. Trump sold his base "the idea" of bringing back manufacturing jobs, so feuding with China is part of maintaining that idea (without pointing fingers at his beloved CEO's and wall street traders and financiers, and the Republican party, that started the offshoring to China policy), while also throwing shade on Asians which is coherent with the white power (the "also good people") pillar of Trumps base as well as a small victory in the double racism and envy against Asian American's (who aren't as poor as other minorities so the racist thirst cannot so easily be satiated through abuse in a police state; therefore, feuding with China is a spectacle that satisfies that itch to, at least believe, Asians are suffering economically due to the glorious power and cunning of a white man).

It is the racism that makes this whole "cultural sensitivity" an issue at the moment, as Trump doesn't want to criticize China by telling the story that leads to the followup question "and then you did what about it?" but rather through insisting it's the "Chinese coronavirus". Likewise, Trump's base focusing on the "nasty habits of these Chinese that unleashed the plague" is a sort of "witch burning ritual" that makes them feel better that Trump could do nothing against such reckless filth out there in the world.

Trump know's what plays well to his base and also knows where he can trip up the media. "Chinese coronavirus" makes that an news issue and distracts from the full spectrum incompetence. The "Chinese cultural habits interacting with wildlife" is just distracting subplot interesting to those (during the crisis) who don't want to engage with the much more important questions.

Conservatives live in a world where if they imagine something could potentially make sense, then it definitely does make sense and they have a right to believing it makes sense and other people recognizing it makes sense, even if it doesn't (and if they don't, they're big meany-beanies). So, since potentially a disease can be named after a place it originated from, then it's definitely justified to name it so... even if the medical community has chosen a different name and the motivations for ad libbing a new name is a transparent (and incompetent attempt) to shirk responsibility.

Why the mainstream media gets tripped up by this is also an interesting issue that highlights their corrupt participation in the failing system.

The mainstream media has painstakingly created an amazing system of propaganda where nothing is ever looked at critically, with nuance, or for very long, just constant noise from which the important messages can be imprinted on people's brains (from sponsors and elite centers of power); that Trump is easily able to manipulate to his benefit as the system is optimized to provide a platform for elites (which Trump qualifies as part of the club) and is designed above all to serve the interests of brands, which Trump is. Within this incoherent noise, it's impossible to make simultaneously the points "yes, China committed an international crime by covering up a potential pandemic; yes, Trump committed a treasonous offense in diminishing the US's capacity to meet a pandemic, "defend the fatherland", for corrupt motivations of filling the government with compliant sycophants and also a treasonous offense of ignoring the intelligence once it was available in order to protect a foreign entity, the stock market, from harm (however shortsighted that attempt was); yes, Trump is trying to tap into that frothy fountain of irrational racism to distract his base from looking at Trump's actions and words during this situation; yes, China has been committing international crimes by tolerating trade in endangered species, which may or may not be tied to this pandemic; yes, the leaders of Europe are simply clueless duffusses (who also could have acted when Trump was not acting, and could have invested in pandemic prevention when Trump was cutting, and could have put economic pressure on communist China to not undermine the entire capitalist system ... like, almost as if they want to own all the means of production, outflank shortsighted greedy capitalists pigs and, like, almost hold the world for ransom in some sort of neo-colonialist inversion or something, like, almost as if) when those European bureaucrats aren't corrupt, which is often, but luckily a whole bunch of our European leaders are just spineless idiots and can be corralled into doing something not so stupid every once and a while."

The mainstream media is unable to engage in these topics because they are a corrupt participant in propping up a a rapidly dimming world view.

Maybe current world events are no longer of interest to you, and you are earnestly trying to work out subtle points of ethics for slight improvements to regulatory frameworks over the long term, assuming they are or have been made to be honest and effective in order for such analysis to be meaningful, in which case, my post is for others who are wondering why "cultural sensitivity" is even an issue during the crisis.

I see some forseable problems with this: — schopenhauer1

II) Trying to stop wet markets like in Wuhan would simply drive the business underground. It would be replicated in rural regions which would be logistically harder to monitor. — schopenhauer1

When I was a small boy it was great to feed birds at winter time. In the city parks there would be so tame (or so bold) little birds that they would even come eat from your hand. My father forbid me to do that and warned that also I should not try to touch ducks or other birds. When I asked him why, he said that not only could a small parasite try to jump to you, but I could get a very nasty flu from a little bird. He is a devoted ornithologist, but also a virologist. Now perhaps it might come more common to know that you can get Avian Influenza or other zoonotic diseases of some sort from interaction with wild animals. And that can change our customs.

Never underestimate collective learning and the changes in time.

I think Chinese & South East Asian customs can change and I think these experiences (SARS, birdflu, Corona-virus etc) can easily make those changes to old customs too. Naturally China and other countries will crack down on the "wet markets" and as you said it will go (and in many places has gone) underground, but also I think (and I hope) that it's not going to be so wildly popular anymore. It's a loosing market, especially when wild animals become so rare. The xenophobic hostility against "bat-soup eating Chinese" might be something popular in the West, but I assume that even in China what is acceptable can change. Not only is there widespread condemnation of it, but calls for an global ban on wildlife markets is something that can happen

1) Is it right to ask another culture to change its practices, when those practices affect the health of the whole world, or would this be just cultural insensitivity played out as public health missionizing? — schopenhauer1

What kind of question is this? As if practices that affect the health of the whole world would be culturally sensitive and go against multiculturalism? It sounds like you would assume someone would use the multiculturalism card on this case. I don't think so. I think that as the whole World, once containment hasn't worked, has opted to wreck the economy in order to save lives tells that the World takes the pandemic seriously. Human life is valued even in the worst places in this World.

It is acknowledged that in some areas (maybe in rural China or Africa or Southeast Asia), perhaps wild animals is all there is for protein consumption — schopenhauer1

Not so. Likely wild animals go far earlier extinct because of climate change than the last domesticated cow or chicken is eaten. The Chinese diet has gone the other way (more meat). And let's remember that human kind will likely hit Peak population soon as with prosperity fertility goes down.

Also, on a slight tangent, others might defend the exotic animals trade and markets similar to defending coal. Shutting down the trade, just like shutting down coal mining and coal plants, would be negatively effecting the economy. Are economic considerations more important for the exotic animal traders and sellers? — schopenhauer1

How big you think is the exotic animal trade? Exotic wild animals are usually in the ten thousand, hundred thousand range, perhaps one million. There are roughly about 1,5 billion cows on the Planet. Notice the scale difference?

Coal? Let's take another example. Do you know what is a really serious health hazard?

Cooking with an open fire.


It's one of the worst things you can do, if you do it every day from year after year and inhale daily that nice sweet smoke of burning wood (or dung or whatever). In the poorest countries it's a real health hazard. But here the economic aspects are obvious compared to exotic animals trade. Poor people without ovens or electricity would gladly get that microwave oven and modern kitchen. But they can't. So they chop up the wood and help desertification etc. because as poor they cannot do anything else. You cannot ban people from being poor. Exotic animals are different starting with the economic scale of the problem.

It's more fruitful to take the focus away from whether something is okay in the abstract to instead ask "how is this issue best addressed in a way that can keep intact the pride and dignity of the culture we're asking the change from and how is it best approached?" and this is just speaking to cultural criticism in general. — BitconnectCarlos

I think trade embargoes and such can be enforced perhaps? Shut down wet markets or higher tariffs? Or, perhaps UN third-party sources monitor the monitoring of the trade. Guidelines and enforcement could be overviewed.

Trump has clearly failed, and now he knows it (since the stock market crashed and the economy is shutdown).

So, he's trying to blame the Chinese, but not through any coherent argument, either because he simply can't formulate a coherent argument or because he knows that just leads to emphasizing that a lot of time has passed since the Chinese cover-up (so, if he complains about the Chinese actions in December, it's not really a good argument as he did nothing in January and February). — boethius

Agreed.

Likewise, the Chinese tolerance of trade in "exotic" (i.e. endangered) animals is also damnable, and should also be met with policies by the rest of the world who don't like it to coerced compliance. Even before the pandemic there was a problem of "ghost forests" where nearly all wildlife had been harvested for Chinese wild meet and wild pet markets. — boethius

Agreed. Interesting.

It's only "almost" because obviously Trump is not actually trying to decouple production from China and engaged in "taxing the hell out of Chinese exports until the CCP follows basic ethics"; Tump's feud with China has just been a political stunt, to get an easy win by getting a better "deal", which is just small tweaks on the previous deal and changes nothing. Trump sold his base "the idea" of bringing back manufacturing jobs, so feuding with China is part of maintaining that idea (without pointing fingers at his beloved CEO's and wall street traders and financiers, and the Republican party, that started the offshoring to China policy), while also throwing shade on Asians which is coherent with the white power (the "also good people") pillar of Trumps base as well as a small victory in the double racism and envy against Asian American's (who aren't as poor as other minorities so the racist thirst cannot so easily be satiated through abuse in a police state; therefore, feuding with China is a spectacle that satisfies that itch to, at least believe, Asians are suffering economically due to the glorious power and cunning of a white man). — boethius

Interesting, pretty much agree.

ithin this incoherent noise, it's impossible to make simultaneously the points "yes, China committed an international crime by covering up a potential pandemic; yes, Trump committed a treasonous offense in diminishing the US's capacity to meet a pandemic, "defend the fatherland", for corrupt motivations of filling the government with compliant sycophants and also a treasonous offense of ignoring the intelligence once it was available in order to protect a foreign entity, the stock market, from harm (however shortsighted that attempt was); yes, Trump is trying to tap into that frothy fountain of irrational racism to distract his base from looking at Trump's actions and words during this situation; yes, China has been committing international crimes by tolerating trade in endangered species, which may or may not be tied to this pandemic; yes, the leaders of Europe are simply clueless duffusses (who also could have acted when Trump was not acting, and could have invested in pandemic prevention when Trump was cutting, and could have put economic pressure on communist China to not undermine the entire capitalist system ... like, almost as if they want to own all the means of production, outflank shortsighted greedy capitalists pigs and, like, almost hold the world for ransom in some sort of neo-colonialist inversion or something, like, almost as if) when those European bureaucrats aren't corrupt, which is often, but luckily a whole bunch of our European leaders are just spineless idiots and can be corralled into doing something not so stupid every once and a while." — boethius

Agreed.. Trump cut funding from Obama years to disease prevention programs. He has no understanding of long-term planning or sense of history whatsoever. He is dangerous and does not know how to lead at all. He is the opposite of a good leader and it has shown in times of real crisis. He's a narcissist to the end.

Maybe current world events are no longer of interest to you, and you are earnestly trying to work out subtle points of ethics for slight improvements to regulatory frameworks over the long term, assuming they are or have been made to be honest and effective in order for such analysis to be meaningful, in which case, my post is for others who are wondering why "cultural sensitivity" is even an issue during the crisis. — boethius

Yes, this came out during a discussion with @StreetlightX who seemed to equate the notion of regulating exotic wild animal trade to being racist. So this got me thinking that maybe others thought the same way and was gauging if this was just a kneejerk reaction from StreetlightX or not. It made me a bit perturbed actually as I was coming at it from a public health issue, and then unfairly had it equated with individual acts of racism, which only had connection in a very surfacy way. Being against a practice that has caused a world pandemic is neither

a) Supporting Trump in any way, and his bungling and ineptitude of this crisis. Nor
b) being in any way racist or being culturally insensitive.

Wanting to shut down wet market wild animal trade has no entailment nor affiliation with a or b. Do you see what prompted this?

I think trade embargoes and such can be enforced perhaps? Shut down wet markets or higher tariffs? Or, perhaps UN third-party sources monitor the monitoring of the trade. Guidelines and enforcement could be overviewed.

Sure, we could do a trade embargo in protest of a cultural practice. I think that's fine. In the case of China the disease arouse from wet markets and the some of the animals being used there. In any case sanitation has always been a problem and it's not clear how to fix that. Sure we can talk about regulation, but we're talking about countless of these markets all across the world in both rural and urban areas. I don't think we can just shut down wet markets because that's how millions of people earn their living.

I think it's a pitfall of globalization; what at one point would have been a localized health threat is now a global pandemic.

Sure, we could do a trade embargo in protest of a cultural practice. I think that's fine. In the case of China the disease arouse from wet markets and the some of the animals being used there. In any case sanitation has always been a problem and it's not clear how to fix that. Sure we can talk about regulation, but we're talking about countless of these markets all across the world in both rural and urban areas. I don't think we can just shut down wet markets because that's how millions of people earn their living. — BitconnectCarlos

There's got to be some answers to deal with the underlying, long-term issues. The crisis right now is certainly overshadowed by the many cases/deaths occurring. But when this is all done, is ANYTHING going to change regarding how these diseases start in the first place? Certainly, it is great to have better emergency action if a contagion spreads, but how about preventing as much as possible the origins of the contagion?

There's got to be some answers to deal with the underlying, long-term issues. The crisis right now is certainly overshadowed by the many cases/deaths occurring. But when this is all done, is ANYTHING going to change regarding how these diseases start in the first place? Certainly, it is great to have better emergency action if a contagion spreads, but how about preventing as much as possible the origins of the contagion?

I don't think we know how to just prevent viruses in the first place. Honestly, the bulk of my knowledge from this subject comes from this two minute video on the origins of the virus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clNkJGqTIJo

I don't work in healthcare and I'm not going to pretend to be a medical expert. It looks like we could approach this from two angles: Either speeding up the approval/creation process for new vaccines or from curtailing human-animal contact. I suppose we could take steps to regulate human-animal contact but realistically we're talking about people's livelihoods and pets here.