I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.
All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?
It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!
The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.
So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.
It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.
Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.
[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.
[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.
[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
How is price per unit of mass not fundamental?
I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.
We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.
I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."
~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns.
Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.
Because weight is the best way to compare things.
What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?