The reading states that a chief number of hunting has led to the extinction of Rhinos and it provides three ideas and ways to save Rhinos. However, the professor in the lecture opposes this argument and refutes all three points made in the reading.
First, the reading expresses that if we try to remove Rhinos horns by medical ways, these animals will be less attractive for hunters and this may help them to survive. However, this contradicts the professor that believes this method has a lot of weaknesses and is not practical. She mentions that to remove their horns, we need to prepare them for surgery which requires a long time and a big budget. She adds that even if we had the money and time, de-horning is harmful to Rhinos. These animals use their horns to search for water and food and also, to protect their territory. She believes by removing their horns, we are causing them a lot of problems in wildlife.
Second, the reading argues that if we try to educate people that Rhino's horn does not have any health benefits for humans, they may stop buying their horns. The professor opposes this idea and explains that some of these beliefs are cultural and ancient and, education only works on people that are not sticking to their wrong, old beliefs. But horn consumers have established traditional thoughts and it is hard to change their minds by teaching them about reality.
Third, the reading mentions that if the government starts to sell horns that they have took from hunters in a legal market with lower prices, the horn market will not be profitable for hunters anymore and, they will stop hunting and trading. The professor refutes this idea and explains that most people do not buy horns because it is illegal and if governments start a legal market for horns, there will be an enormous number of consumers. By increasing the buyers' number, therefore, the market will grow and this, in turn, will cause an increase in prices. So, not only will it not stop hunters, but also, it will encourage them to hunt more.
The
reading
states that a chief number of hunting has led to the extinction of Rhinos and it provides three
ideas
and ways to save Rhinos.
However
, the
professor
in the lecture opposes this argument and refutes all three points made in the reading.
First
, the
reading
expresses that if we try to remove Rhinos
horns
by medical ways, these animals will be less attractive for hunters and this may
help
them to survive.
However
, this contradicts the
professor
that believes this method has
a lot of
weaknesses and is not practical. She mentions that to remove their
horns
, we need to prepare them for surgery which requires a long time and a
big
budget. She
adds
that even if we had the money and time,
de-horning
is harmful to Rhinos. These animals
use
their
horns
to search for water and food and
also
, to protect their territory. She believes by removing their
horns
, we are causing them
a lot of
problems in wildlife.
Second, the
reading
argues that if we try to educate
people
that Rhino's
horn
does not have any health benefits for humans, they may
stop
buying their
horns
. The
professor
opposes this
idea
and
explains
that
some
of these beliefs are cultural and ancient and, education
only
works on
people
that are not sticking to their
wrong
,
old
beliefs.
But
horn
consumers have established traditional thoughts and it is
hard
to
change
their minds by teaching them about reality.
Third, the
reading
mentions that if the
government
starts
to sell
horns
that they have took from hunters in a legal
market
with lower prices, the
horn
market
will not be profitable for hunters anymore and, they will
stop
hunting and trading. The
professor
refutes this
idea
and
explains
that most
people
do not
buy
horns
because
it is illegal and if
governments
start
a legal
market
for
horns
, there will be an enormous number of consumers. By increasing the buyers' number,
therefore
, the
market
will grow and this, in turn, will cause an increase in prices.
So
, not
only
will it not
stop
hunters,
but
also
, it will encourage them to hunt more.