Animal lovers often express indignation about how zoo animals lose their freedom, but I am of the opinion that animals should be kept in zoos.
Keeping animals in zoos offers a myriad of benefits, one of which is the chance for city dwellers to have encounters with animals in person. When people understand that animals aren’t just abstract entities that they only see in books and documentaries, they will be more inclined to want to safeguard animal welfare.
Another benefit is that many zoos actually play a leading role in animal conservation, thereby rescuing animals from the brink of extinction. The Singapore Zoological Gardens, for instance, channels a portion of its earnings towards region-wide conservation efforts, thereby safeguarding the populations of critically endangered species such as the sunda pangolin. If zoos play such an active role in animal conservation, we should support the keeping of animals in zoos.
For these two reasons, I agree that animals should be kept in zoos.
There was an elephant, Pak Bahadır, who was synonymous with the city of İzmir and is no longer alive. The city loved him so much that they erected a statue in his honor.
But, what I remember is this:
The poor animal was confined to a half-acre enclosure (around the year 1980s). He was alone. Sometimes he would repeatedly attack the door of his cage with his head, trying to escape from people and get back into the area where he slept. The sounds were terrifying. But the city adored him.
No creature would be protected via stolen their freedom.
thanks for sharing this sad story. I agree that animals should never be chained
🤎🤎🤎
If an animal is "prey", it's not so bad to keep it in a zoo. If an animal is a "predator", it seems a little undignified. On the other hand, my cat gets anxiety if he's not with humans, so it's hard to argue that he's an unwilling captive.
I get what you mean, and I think your words resonate with me if the predators being referred to are a pride of lions or other animals that hunt in groups. if the predator is a solitary white tiger, I feel its existence is more or less the same, regardless of whether it lives in the zoo or roams in the wild
NO! The only situation I’d accept is if it’s a sanctuary for sick or disabled animals.
Why? How would you respond to OP's points in support?
In my book, messing with animals' natural state just for human pleasure is fucked up. I get trying to save species from going extinct, but if an animal is on the edge, it’s just not 'strong' enough and needs to let nature take its course. Humans need to stop trying to play God. Let Darwin's theory 'do' its thing.
ah I see it differently.
I feel that because these species are becoming critically endangered due to man’s interference and greed, it is only right that humans take up some responsibility in trying to redeem their misdeeds through their conservation efforts
Helping endangered animals doesn't happen in zoos, it happens in the wild. Zoos are just a business for human entertainment! If people wanna see wild animals in real life, they should go on a safari—if they got the cash for it.
I don’t find it inherently wrong to keep animals in zoos, but it should be for a reason that benefits the animals.
The entertainment aspect should basically serve to help finance the rehabilitation of injured animals that will be released to the wild or a sanctuary for those that would be unable to survive in the wild.
I agree with you, and if the majority of mankind were to feel similarly, how will you propose circus performers be retrained for other jobs? I think circuses should be abolished but wonder about the livelihoods of these performers, many of whom have dedicated years of their lives to honing their skills
Circus performers likely have some generally applicable entertainment skills.
Also, I have slightly different feelings about working animals. The relevant standard there should be that the animals prefer their working life to the wild. That could be tested by regularly giving them opportunities to leave. The circus, or farm or whatever, would then have to treat them such that they decide to stick around.
I mean, pet owners don't regularly give their pets the opportunity to leave. is it really a reasonable or workable standard?
Pet owners also don’t require work.
They should still hold themselves to the standard, even if it goes untested, that their pets would choose to stay with them.
economists have a hard enough time with human time inconsistency, I wonder how we'd even begin to evaluate the preferences of animals
We have no standard other than revealed preferences in either case.
When in doubt, treat them better, because you’re the one forcing them to live a particular way.
Agree... other things equal, treat animals better. But I just think concepts of animal welfare are too fraught with philosophical issues that it makes sense to me to accept a fairly wide latitude of human behavior towards animals, as long as there isn't deliberate cruelty or negligence.
I have nothing against zoos, and I think it's somewhat hypocritical to both eat animals and believe they shouldn't be kept in zoos.
People seem like giant hypocrites, until you realize it’s worse than that. Most people don’t have any real principles, which makes it impossible for them to truly be hypocrites.
I think it depends on how well-run the zoo is. I visited Ueno Zoo in Tokyo before and it was frankly a depressing experience. run-down conditions, animal in caged conditions, doesn’t look very clean. deplorable all around.
how are the zoos in Taiwan? never have had a chance to visit
I mean, not all of them.
Marginality matters #1488323
woah
bro I have a simple mind. I just wanna think in terms of black and white haha
I mean where do we draw the line? which wild animals should be kept in zoos and which ones shouldn’t? it’s a thought-provoking thought experiment though
boomers, for sure, should be kept under strict observation and lock and key.
Others, negotiable
I remember seeing a study a while ago on stress levels in animals living in their natural habitat and in captivity, and the animals living in captivity have absurdly lower stress levels compared to those living in the wild.
probably because they don’t have to fend for themselves and defend themselves against predators?
but you made me think of a question: should animals bred in captivity be someday released back into the wild? would they be able to survive if they never have to worry about food? is it responsible of humans to do so?
Exactly, he doesn't have to worry about other predators, or looking for food or anything, his life is sorted hahaha
I've seen some documentaries about it, and I remember one where I think some lions starved to death because they couldn't adapt, and others were killed by other wild lions for failing to adapt. It was a complete failure, just like the famous whale Keiko (I think she's the one who inspired Free Willy), who also couldn't adapt.
Animals learn by instinct and are taught by their mothers and other animals in the herd, and when they're in captivity, that instinct is "switched off."
I totally agree with you and have made a mental note to refresh my memory about Keiko haha
Let them roam free, it's a free world
didn’t expect my random musing about zoos to ignite so many responses here. I should have expected that as Bitcoiners, the notion of freedom is something that resonates heavily with many of us