How Much Should We Sacrifice For "The Greater Good"

Photo courtesy: Tabitha Kho

Capitalism and humans’ “perverse appetites” could save the black rhino. 

One dusty day last June, I had the privilege of spotting one of the rarest animals on Earth. With only 6,000 individuals remaining in the wild, there are fewer black rhinos than current SFS students. 

“They’re beautiful, charismatic creatures. And unfortunately, they’re becoming critically scarce because we don't have the money to save them,” says Petrus Van Eck, a South African safari guide dedicated to forging the connection between people and wildlife. Under international law, the trade of rhino horn from Southern Africa is banned because the demand for it results in excessive poaching. 

However governments issue and sell off hunting permits for these species every year, claiming that it contributes towards conservation. How can this be?

For Many, the Rhinos are Better Off Dead

The black rhino is one of the most endangered species on the planet because, for many, they are worth more dead than alive. The horn of the black rhino is believed, in many Asian countries, to be a powerful symbol of status and a near magical medicinal object. Therefore, rich buyers are willing to pay locals in Southern Africa $30,000 on the black market for an illegally poached black rhino horn. This is life changing money – equivalent to 30 years of pay to the average inhabitant of these countries! On the flip side, local communities are rarely included in the benefits rhinos bring through tourism, thus presenting locals with no incentive to care for the rhinos.

However, as poachers kill more rhinos, their horns become scarcer and, therefore, more valuable. Thus, the vicious cycle feeds itself, constantly driving this toxic industry. 

While a dead black rhino generates a king’s ransom for a poacher, a living black rhino doesn’t give the government anything, especially considering the costs required to protect it. Petrus explains that “the main challenge of protecting such endangered species is funding. Every government has limited resources, and conservation is pretty low on the list.” 

Herein lies the issue: while there’s ample motivation to kill a rhino, there’s a much lower one to protect it. The solution? Create the right incentive.

Humans’ Perverse Appetites: Pay to Kill a Rhino

To this end, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa have been doing something which is not seen anywhere else in the world: they give private owners full control over wildlife living on their property. This may seem counterproductive for conservation. After all, what can one owner do that the government cannot, and how do we keep private owners in check? 

Nevertheless, Petrus is an advocate of this solution. Private owners have a much better incentive to protect rhinos they own, as they can profit from them through the lucrative tourism business. Plus, “the private sector already funds a lot of conservation where the government cannot,” and the results are clear. Since 2010, there has been both a “steady decline in wild rhino on state land” and an increase of rhinos on private land (teamAG).

The privatization of black rhinos opens up new possibilities for profit, and new incentives to keep them. However, some of these possibilities seem morally gray. Each year, the Namibian government auctions off hunting permits for a limited number of black rhinos. Wealthy trophy hunters will buy these permits for hundreds of thousands of dollars, money that gives private owners incentives and the ability to invest in the expensive protection of their other rhinos. 

Trophy hunting is one of many proposed conservation solutions that require a trade-off: sacrificing one rhino’s life, and one’s moral convictions, for the benefit of the whole. If such trade-offs work so well, why do they feel wrong?

Ethical Trade-off

Putting the lives of rhinos into the hands of one private owner is sensitive: especially a private owner whose main goal is not to protect the animal, but rather to profit from it. (Although if the incentives are right, these goals should align). The outcome might be the same, but the intentions are wrong, according to some. Trophy hunting is even more ethically ambiguous, as it forces us to put a price tag on the rhino’s life. Furthermore, some argue that condoning a black rhino’s murder is intrinsically wrong, even if it generates funds for conservation. This trade-off doesn’t stop with rhinos – it extends to all kinds of endangered wildlife, each with its own unique case.

“Yes, I think it's right to put these animals in private hands,” Petrus says, “Because it is the only way forward.” However, Petrus emphasizes that a delicate balance between benefits and dangers must be upheld. 

“The only way to ensure the sustainable utilization of our natural resources such as wildlife is through a collective partnership between government, private owners and local communities. Our beautiful African wildlife will then have a much brighter future.”

The black rhino situation tells us a lot about our values. Are we willing to sacrifice one rhino’s life for the benefit of the rest? Are we willing to sacrifice the fate of the black rhino for our morals? Or, is it necessary to strike a balance between extremes? In the end, it’s up to us to decide how much we are willing to sacrifice in the name of “the greater good.”

Photo courtesy: Tabitha Kho