Hello comrades. I don't think I've ever posted a particular question on this site but I've been thinking a lot recently about zoos. Specifically should they exist? Are they a good idea to have them while the world is being destroyed by capitalism? Should they exist after the revolution?
As long as zoos give their animals ample room and enrichment, I’m all for them. I think it’s cool for people to be able to see animals from all around first of all. Second, on our dying planet they’re often the best way of keeping a species alive.
But third, and my biggest point, is that in a zoo that has ample room and enrichment, animals will live much longer, happier, healthier lives than they otherwise would. I think people, on the left especially, tend to romanticize nature, but the reality is nature fucking sucks. Being a wild animal sucks. Best case scenario you’re an apex predator who just has to worry about starving. Worst case you’re a bottom rung prey animal that on top of starving also has to worry about getting eaten.
Don’t over-anthropomorphize animals. They aren’t humans and don’t have the same desires as humans. For most animals priorities 1 and 2 are “Find food” and “Don’t get eaten” and then 3 is like “laze around, maybe play with something, maybe fuck.”
Obviously the “ample room and enrichment” bit excludes probably a majority of zoos, but definitely not all and I have absolutely no problems with zoos that do provide those. And obviously there are some animals that simply don’t do well in captivity (great white sharks for example). But I’d rather be a gazelle at Busch Gardens than a gazelle in the wild any fucking day.
I'm a firm zoo defender. You can say "nature preserves" all day, but until you have a system that enables large scale, uninterrupted reserves backed by governments that give a shit, critically endangered animals need a place to survive. That's what zoos are. They're arks.
Read Stationary Arkby Gerald Durrel, the guy who formulated this idea, to learn more. There is plenty to be critiqued about zoos, but they are enormously valuable for conservation.
Disagree, the only reserves of value for animals are nature reserves. We shouldn't bring animals to where they wouldn't naturally be, we should seek to exterminate invasive species, we should even try to end the concept of owning a pet cat or dog and try to reintroduce them into the wild.
Idealism, top to bottom, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what resources are currently available to conservationists, what zoos do, and what animal domestication is.
I mean, imagine saying we need to exterminate invasive species but also that pets need to be "reintroduced" to the wild (the dogs would starve and the cats would be an awful invasive species as they already are in many places).
They are a humane place to keep the royal families of the world after the revolution.
Put them on display for all to see.
The Soviet Union had zoos. I think it's gets kids interested in animals and you can get people into conservation. Zoos have come a long way since the iron prisons my relatives described from the 60s. As long as the animals are well cared for and sourced ethically, then I don't see a problem. Though in a capitalist system, their probably isn't a good way to own a zoo. Apparently the Houston Zoo went from public to a non profit because it's a hassle for the parks department, I'm sure some ghouls also wanted it that way too.
There is a reptile channel I used to follow and they open up a zoo. Rex, the subject of the video is a rescue. She also mentions that zoo displays give a lot more room that a collector can provide.
https://youtu.be/L7cwCOYThJ4
I appreciate the ones that do rehabilitation and as long as they give the animals ample room, it can be a good thing. I hate when cages are laid out so the animal is forced to be in view of the people.
In a perfect world, they wouldn't exist imo. Naturally, I'm against the capitalism aspect
I think we all agree Joe Exotic and Carol Baskins need a good shot to the head.
I'm pro the concept of zoos, but a lot of the ones are just caged animals and that needs to end. I've seen a good zoo where the animals are well cared for and have plenty of room to do whatever it is they do, no reason to get rid of that. Probably stop moving big animals like tigers and giraffes across continents, but no reason not to maintain them where they already are.
What your suggesting is nature reserves which should not have tourists visit it think of Yellowstone but the only people allowed to go there are wildlife experts.
pointless to respond, but I'm not suggesting nature preserves. Things like bears and deer being observed in a roomy enclosure is fine, they're better off than they are in nature and humans can learn more about animals and care for them.
Oooh boy let’s get a vegan struggle session going here.
My answer would be yes but what function these “zoos” serve must be so fundamentally altered that they are almost unrecognizable. Not for profit institutions that exist to help mitigate the massive damage done to global biodiversity by the actions of the human race. There are already organizations that do a lot of this work but the necessity for institutions like zoos comes from two issues
1: it does not take much for an animal to become unable to survive in it’s natural habitat. And if we let every animal whose bound to die without any help die in the name of natural selection, we are looking down the barrel of a massive extinction event that is likely inevitable at this point. Anything to mitigate the damage to nonhuman life and help even potentially preserve some percentage of the biodiversity that helps keep our world habitable is worthwhile IMO.
2: There is a real value to the educational and empathetic experience of interacting with animals, particularly for children. This is why pets are good and good for us (another complicated area of vegan ethics). I am of the opinion that the benefit of having human animal interactions as a way to increase empathy and appreciation for the world of non human life outweighs the moral greyness of animal captivity.
When I say that I am referring strictly to animals that have either A. Been domesticated or otherwise evolved to consensually live in captivity or B. Animals that have been injured or socialized incorrectly as a result of human interference. Which, as previously stated, there are always plenty of. And caring for these animals would be one of the primary purposes of any kind of “zoo”. Of course the ethical quandaries don’t end there because fundamentally a wild animal won’t appreciate captivity no matter how unfit they have become for nature. And it’s not easy to have enough space for a place like this while also being in proximity to a large enough population that would make the educational aspects worthwhile. There are some AEZ (actually existing zoos) that do good work and there is so much valuable information to be gained from the animal world that I will always be a firm believer in zoos but it’s complicated and nothing is perfect.
The building empathy part is crucial here: Bringing an animal from the abstract to the real can make a big difference in the minds of ... less naturally empathetic ... people. Often it can be a stepping stone for broader understanding of animal rights.
That being said, the ultimate goal should be abolishment (except maybe for ark purposes?) of zoos.
Glad you see my point cause it is kinda abstract, but I really do believe that educational aspect is important, was for me at least.
I don't think the empathy of visitors should be a factor at all in the preservation of animals. Don't even let people see them, if you want animals to live close to a natural life as possible keep humans out of the picture. At least half of all arable land should be set aside towards conservation, breeding should always be a last resort.
Whatever conservation or rehabilitation efforts are carried out by zoos would be better carried out on wildlife preserves. Generally, caging animals is a nonstarter.
from an animal rights perspective, most zoos are pretty fucked. I would say we should restore the natural habitats and ecological niche animals have adapted to live in, than lock them in cages to have thousands day in day out gawk at them as, literal, performing monkeys
Maybe I am weird but I feel like they should tame all the animals at the zoo.
I don't know if seeing a gorilla sleep in a nice field really gives you a proper appreciation for it. But like, if we could see one dead lift we could really appreciate how unlike us they are
that's barbarous. I don't need to see the animals acting as humans or for humans. I go to a zoo to see how the animal lives on its own terms. I obviously won't see the full range as there are no predators, it will mate in a hidden place and rear young similarly, enclosed behavior, and so on, but it is pointless to actively change the animal behavior for human entertainment.
Not entertainment. So we can actually live with them and learn about them. It isn't their natural environment true. If they are going to be in a zoo we could try to integrate them into our society to the extent they are comfortable. Most mega fauna are heard animals and would probably do okay. Then again maybe not. We are just as much animals as they are so it seems like it could work to me.
humans are massively different from other animals, in that we can talk and reason and exchange money and count and number our generations. Some other animals are able to do some of these to an extent, bu none so well as humans. Trying to integrate them, especially in the human imitation style you suggest, would be harmful to animals and not really benefit humans. I don't need to see a gorilla pump iron to know it is strong.
I tbink you are being somewhat precious about the capabilities of humans.
We are barely good at those things most of thetime and if we set up a safe environment for them I bet mote animals than we'd rhibk could comfortably adapt. Dunno what they'd do but I am optimistic about trying it. If thrh didn't want to that's fine to though. We don't curre to exe ted thst decentcy to people so ebo knows
Last time I went to an aquarium I heard a seal yell and the only way I can describe it is that he yelled mournfully
I'm generally on the side of zoos but am strongly against aquariums. What a waste of resources, and the animals are not happy there. At least zoos seem better at keeping land animals happy and healthy.
Interesting. Couldn't certain animals in the aquarium be happy there? We're kinda destroying all the coral reefs and so it would most likely be a good idea to have a few giant coral reef tanks in various places to preserve that sort of environment until the ocean is cleaned up right? Maybe only having them in warm land environments would reduce heating costs.
that's possible, but a lot of the smarter ones like sea mammals and octopodes do not like being kept in enclosures.
Sea life has a very large habitat range, much farther than birds.
