> What makes pangolins more dangerous than pigs or ducks which have been a similar source of human diseases?

It's less the species than the wet markets.

Putting lots of species in close proximity, particularly ones that don't naturally co-exist, facilitates host jumping. Its only comparison is with medieval European cities, where people, sewage and livestock had constant and close proximity to one another.

Which is what I expected. There is truth to diseases like this coming from dangerous food practices, but that often gets coated in a layer of ethnocentrism that pins it on a specific animal or the need to hunt wildlife instead of relying on a factory farming infrastructure (which is also increasing the potential for global pandemic by overusing antibiotics).

Bats can nest in many places where animals and livestock are kept. See MERS and its relation to bats and camels.

> Putting lots of species in close proximity

Live ones at that.

"Close proximity" does it a disservice when there are cages of animals stacked on top of one another such that the animals in the bottom cages may be covered in the feces of those above them.

Black market vs regulated market. Pangolins being endangered and protected mean they are only sold illegally. People selling animals illegally aren't getting health inspections. Of course regulations for legal animals probably need to be improved

Well, for starters you're reducing the number of attack vectors.

If the only animals we can eat are a small number of species from regulated farms, any crossover/issue is contained and traceable to those species and farms.

If you allow (including as a purchaser you create demand for it), in open market a wider range of species from a wider range of sources, you open up the number of attack vectors increasing risks to everybody on the planet.

Domesticated animals have well known diseases and at least you know where they came from. Wild animals are a complete unknown when they hit the market.