The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Mr Pseudonym on July 17, 2012, 06:05:14 AM

Title: Zoos
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on July 17, 2012, 06:05:14 AM
Zoos - do we really need them?

Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Rushy on July 17, 2012, 06:19:24 AM
Need them? I'd have to say no. I've noticed that many cities are losing attendance to zoos and therefore they should be shut down in due time. However, other cities (which usually have a great deal of tourists) have zoos which are doing just fine. Thus, assuming that the zoo has the ability to at least keep itself afloat with visitors, I say most, including myself, do want zoos.

Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 17, 2012, 12:58:21 PM
Yeah, Irushwithstds basically summarized my opinion.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Pongo on July 17, 2012, 01:27:11 PM
Many zoos play a critical role in preserving endangered species and rehabiliting them for release in the wild.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on July 17, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Rushy on July 17, 2012, 07:10:32 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.

That could be used for a lot of aspects of society. "I think that all [art museums] should shut down because they do nothing and are a waste of money" History museums, aquariums, family science centers, etc. I could put quite a bit in there. To me its just a crappy picture on a wall, to an artist its an amazing work of the human imagination. To you, a zoo is just an entertainment vector, and a fairly boring one at that. To a biologist or a wildlife expert, a zoo can be quite the goldmine of information. There are even those that claim NASA is truly worthless and should no longer be funded. (I mean that in a non-FES related manner) Who are we to judge a certain service's worth when we aren't familiar enough with its inner workings?
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: theonlydann on July 17, 2012, 08:15:29 PM
Zoos need to be mindful of an animals natural habitat. I was happy when the Detroit Zoo got rid of elephants due to the absolutely shit living conditions.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 02:40:19 PM
I was happy when the Detroit Zoo got rid of elephants due to the absolutely shit living conditions.

Based on my experience, that term is impressively apt.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on July 20, 2012, 07:16:15 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.

That could be used for a lot of aspects of society. "I think that all [art museums] should shut down because they do nothing and are a waste of money" History museums, aquariums, family science centers, etc. I could put quite a bit in there. To me its just a crappy picture on a wall, to an artist its an amazing work of the human imagination. To you, a zoo is just an entertainment vector, and a fairly boring one at that. To a biologist or a wildlife expert, a zoo can be quite the goldmine of information. There are even those that claim NASA is truly worthless and should no longer be funded. (I mean that in a non-FES related manner) Who are we to judge a certain service's worth when we aren't familiar enough with its inner workings?
Most of those things you mentioned (besides aquariums which I would put in the same catergory as zoos for this discussion) don't have living animals whose quality of life may be suffering. I admit I am not familiar with their inner workings which is why I am trying to open this up to more discussion.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on July 20, 2012, 08:54:15 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.

That could be used for a lot of aspects of society. "I think that all [art museums] should shut down because they do nothing and are a waste of money" History museums, aquariums, family science centers, etc. I could put quite a bit in there. To me its just a crappy picture on a wall, to an artist its an amazing work of the human imagination. To you, a zoo is just an entertainment vector, and a fairly boring one at that. To a biologist or a wildlife expert, a zoo can be quite the goldmine of information. There are even those that claim NASA is truly worthless and should no longer be funded. (I mean that in a non-FES related manner) Who are we to judge a certain service's worth when we aren't familiar enough with its inner workings?
Most of those things you mentioned (besides aquariums which I would put in the same catergory as zoos for this discussion) don't have living animals whose quality of life may be suffering. I admit I am not familiar with their inner workings which is why I am trying to open this up to more discussion.

The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 21, 2012, 01:03:13 PM
The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.
This is very similar to a common early argument in defense of African slavery.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Thork on July 21, 2012, 01:39:48 PM
In some way zoos are great. I've seen a real life panda. Of course I would never have seen that or giraffes or lions or pythons or most of these exotic creatures. and I saw those things as a child. So the education aspect I don't think can be over looked.

And as mentioned the conservation side should be very important. Especially with things like Rhinos. Poaching may mean zoos are the only way to preserve the species.

But I think they should be heavily state funded in order to ensure the quality of life for the animals is as good can practicably be. Private ownership means if ticket sales are down, the monkeys don't get new tyres to swing on. I think that money shouldn't be a consideration if you bring animals from their natural habitat to live in an artificial one. The onus is on you to make it every bit as good as the real thing.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Pyriew on July 21, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.
This is very similar to a common early argument in defense of African slavery.

Indeed, the earliest such argument was that Africans are the equivalent of animals, which is what these other arguments were based on, in a way, so that's not much of a disproof to his point.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on July 22, 2012, 02:31:46 AM
The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.
This is very similar to a common early argument in defense of African slavery.

Whats your point?  If we are no better than animals, then well we should be killing, eating, and sticking other creatures in zoos so we can look at them.  If we are better than animals, then we can in fact provide a superior life for them in captivity while also educating our own public regarding the importance of the environment and wildlife.

But yeah its similar to the argument made for slavery, except that it doesn't involve humans being owned, sold, traded, forced to work for free, and killed for another man's profits.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 22, 2012, 06:36:21 AM
But yeah its similar to the argument made for slavery, except that it doesn't involve humans being owned, sold, traded, forced to work for free, and killed for another man's profits.
While you're correct it doesn't involve humans, it does involve many other types of animals.

Whats your point?  If we are no better than negroes, then well we should be killing, eating, and sticking other creatures in zoos so we can look at them.  If we are better than negroes, then we can in fact provide a superior life for them in captivity while also educating our own public regarding the importance of the environment and wildlife.
Oh look, it still applies.

Indeed, the earliest such argument was that Africans are the equivalent of animals, which is what these other arguments were based on, in a way, so that's not much of a disproof to his point.
The point isn't so much that Africans were animals as they were sub-human. Much the same way we view animals. I am not passing moral judgement if this is right or wrong. I am simply saying we've had a similar situation in human history before.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2012, 11:07:49 AM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Thork on July 22, 2012, 12:26:47 PM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/59/13/64/the-spider-web-farm.jpg)
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 22, 2012, 12:29:28 PM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on July 22, 2012, 07:44:32 PM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda. 
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Pyriew on July 23, 2012, 10:30:26 AM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda.

You really think there are oranges in orange soda?
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on July 23, 2012, 12:59:57 PM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda.

You really think there are oranges in orange soda?

You've never had pellegrinos?  Were not talking about sunkist here.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Pyriew on July 23, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Please drop the topic of slavery. Zoos do not have their animals go out and pick cotton all day. The only time a zoo animals works is when they do demonstrations with the larger intelligent animals. Demonstration = Food. If you have a problem with that, well you have a problem with society itself, since we all work for food in one way or another.
You're correct, we all generally work for our existence. However, we have the right to choose how we would like to work and how we would like to live. Zoo animals, and slaves, do not have this right. They are forced to live in a specific environment and work (keeping in mind that they are working whenever people watch them) in a specific way. I am not claiming that this is moral or immoral, I am just noting the similarity.

Oranges have no choice whether they are juiced, eaten plain, or used for orange soda.

You really think there are oranges in orange soda?

You've never had pellegrinos?  Were not talking about sunkist here.

Probably tastes horrible. Can't imagine soda without at least seventeen additional ingrediants. It's unnatural.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: StarBright on September 28, 2012, 11:54:53 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.

That could be used for a lot of aspects of society. "I think that all [art museums] should shut down because they do nothing and are a waste of money" History museums, aquariums, family science centers, etc. I could put quite a bit in there. To me its just a crappy picture on a wall, to an artist its an amazing work of the human imagination. To you, a zoo is just an entertainment vector, and a fairly boring one at that. To a biologist or a wildlife expert, a zoo can be quite the goldmine of information. There are even those that claim NASA is truly worthless and should no longer be funded. (I mean that in a non-FES related manner) Who are we to judge a certain service's worth when we aren't familiar enough with its inner workings?
Most of those things you mentioned (besides aquariums which I would put in the same catergory as zoos for this discussion) don't have living animals whose quality of life may be suffering. I admit I am not familiar with their inner workings which is why I am trying to open this up to more discussion.

The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.

Ffs.

I used to be a zookeeper. The quality of life for captive animals is severely diminished compared to animals in the wild, and it shows in their behaviour. They get depression, they refuse to breed, they lose some of their natural behaviours and adopt unhealthy, self-destructive ones out of boredom or frustration.

The only good thing about zoos is they take part in breeding programmes. There are also zoos that serve as rehabilitation centres for abused animals, such as old circus animals that are no longer wanted. They work to rehabilitate these animals and to make their lives as comfortable and enriched with as little focus on public viewings as possible. These animals are usually too broken to be set free, but there are some zoos that take part in reintroducing animals into the wild after years of confinement.

So, while I don't like the idea of zoos, unfortunately they're needed until we can find a way to bring wild animal populations into equilibrium.

* edited to fix mistakes. My iPad has a retarded autocorrect feature.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on September 29, 2012, 03:49:42 PM
I think they are purely there for our entertainment as humans. They seem cruel and outdated and I wonder if there are better ways we could structure our zoos, making them more natural, realistic, almost like nature reserves. I would also argue that the animal conversation thing is not as effective as it could be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems we are still losing many species and again, I think we could do things a lot better with money and resources then keeping a few animals in a cage.

That could be used for a lot of aspects of society. "I think that all [art museums] should shut down because they do nothing and are a waste of money" History museums, aquariums, family science centers, etc. I could put quite a bit in there. To me its just a crappy picture on a wall, to an artist its an amazing work of the human imagination. To you, a zoo is just an entertainment vector, and a fairly boring one at that. To a biologist or a wildlife expert, a zoo can be quite the goldmine of information. There are even those that claim NASA is truly worthless and should no longer be funded. (I mean that in a non-FES related manner) Who are we to judge a certain service's worth when we aren't familiar enough with its inner workings?
Most of those things you mentioned (besides aquariums which I would put in the same catergory as zoos for this discussion) don't have living animals whose quality of life may be suffering. I admit I am not familiar with their inner workings which is why I am trying to open this up to more discussion.

The thing is that the quality of life for zoo animals is most likely going to be far better than that of animals outside the zoo.  There are of course exceptions to this, but in many ways the life of an animal outside of a zoo is very similar to a stray dog, or a feral cat, but even harsher.  With no one to give them free food, they have to hunt for themselves, and can often starve.  They must fight other animals for resources and mating rights, and do not receive medical attention of their wounds.  Now some zoos fail to provide adequate space or suitable types of space for their animals, and that is terrible.  If however a zoo properly houses its animals, and treats them with care and respect i personally feel that its advantages for the animal in many ways.

Ffs.

I used to be a zookeeper. The quality of life for captive animals is severely diminished compared to animals in the wild, and it shows in their behaviour. They get depression, they refuse to breed, they lose some of their natural behaviours and adopt unhealthy, self-destructive ones out of boredom or frustration.

The only good thing about zoos is they take part in breeding programmes. There are also zoos that serve as rehabilitation centres for abused animals, such as old circus animals that are no longer wanted. They work to rehabilitate these animals and to make their lives as comfortable and enriched with as little focus on public viewings as possible. These animals are usually too broken to be set free, but there are some zoos that take part in reintroducing animals into the wild after years of confinement.

So, while I don't like the idea of zoos, unfortunately they're needed until we can find a way to bring wild animal populations into equilibrium.

* edited to fix mistakes. My iPad has a retarded autocorrect feature.

If an animals knows its in zoo, then the zoo has failed to provide an adequate space for the animal in my opinion.  And when i said Zoo, i was pretty clearly talking about those that perform rehabilitation for animals that for whatever reason could not live in the wild.  Of course if you take an elephant out of its home for no reason and stick it in a pen it wont be as happy, that's not what i meant to suggest.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: StarBright on September 29, 2012, 05:13:41 PM
You said the quality of life is better for animals in zoos because they're given food instead of having to hunt and they don't have to fight for territory and mating rights.

Animals want to hunt and they have to release their aggression somehow. With no use for the fight/flight response in captivity, they're left with high levels of unspent energy which is when you get depression and antisocial, self destructive behaviour. A good zoo will do its best to let animals display their natural behaviours, and that includes fighting for dominance, space, food and mates. Take that away from them and you're taking away a large part of their reason for being.

Of course, to do this you need massive enclosures, like you said. Enclosures that simulate their natural home ranges, which can stretch for miles depending on the animal. It's just not possible for any zoo to provide such space.

Maybe in Utopia, it could happen. But in Utopia we wouldn't have poaching savages and massive-scale deforestation anyway so there'd be no need for zoos.

I don't even know if I responded to your post properly... I'm aching all over and it's affecting my mind.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on September 29, 2012, 05:40:40 PM
You said the quality of life is better for animals in zoos because they're given food instead of having to hunt and they don't have to fight for territory and mating rights.

Animals want to hunt and they have to release their aggression somehow. With no use for the fight/flight response in captivity, they're left with high levels of unspent energy which is when you get depression and antisocial, self destructive behaviour. A good zoo will do its best to let animals display their natural behaviours, and that includes fighting for dominance, space, food and mates. Take that away from them and you're taking away a large part of their reason for being.

Of course, to do this you need massive enclosures, like you said. Enclosures that simulate their natural home ranges, which can stretch for miles depending on the animal. It's just not possible for any zoo to provide such space.

Maybe in Utopia, it could happen. But in Utopia we wouldn't have poaching savages and massive-scale deforestation anyway so there'd be no need for zoos.

I don't even know if I responded to your post properly... I'm aching all over and it's affecting my mind.

Like I said, it depends on the animal.  There are two situations we are talking about here.

1.)  Animals would have food and things.  This is in reference to rehabilitation and animals that would have died.  its obviously preffereable for an animal to be in its natural environment, the point is that said environment does not always allow that animal to live, in which case its better off in a Zoo where it can be provided what it needs.

2.) the second situation pertains to zoos that do not rehabilitate (which at least where i live is a minority).  I am still okay with these zoos existing, provided that the animal does not know or not is negatively impacted from living in the zoo.  You are right that in some situations and with some animals this would require huge amounts of land.  But if the zoo cannot provide this then it should not have it.  And if the zoo did provide these things the animal would be better off, as it would have protection from poachers, access to vets, and a steady supply of food that it could naturally obtain (be it hunting, foraging, or what have you).  There are zoos that specialize in what i have just described, its not only a Utopian idea.  Is it most zoos, no, should it be, yes.

This is why in many cases (i said not all) the quality of life is better in a zoo, even if its far from perfect.  Of course if a zoo has an animal that it cannot recreate the environment for its going to be an unhappy animal, but that's just a bad zoo, and should not negatively impact our impression of all zoos.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: StarBright on September 29, 2012, 08:30:02 PM
Can you give me an example of an animal in its natural environment not getting its needs met? Apart from the usual ailments and hungry periods that all wild animals experience. I'm just not sure what you mean by this.

My point is zoos cannot recreate natural environments, therefore captive animals can never have lives as fulfilled and enriched as they would be in the wild - starvation, untreated wounds and all. These things are natural and on some deep level they understand this. Captivity is very unnatural and is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, such as the respite park for the bears from the bile farms. I'm not even sure I really agree with the breeding programs... Sometimes I think there's so much animal cruelty in the world that we should let them go extinct. They won't know it's happening and we're only keeping them around for ourselves anyway, aren't we? For future generations to appreciate. I personally don't care if our children get to see these animals or not. They're not here for our enjoyment.

Well that escalated quickly...
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on September 30, 2012, 01:09:49 PM
Can you give me an example of an animal in its natural environment not getting its needs met? Apart from the usual ailments and hungry periods that all wild animals experience. I'm just not sure what you mean by this.

My point is zoos cannot recreate natural environments, therefore captive animals can never have lives as fulfilled and enriched as they would be in the wild - starvation, untreated wounds and all. These things are natural and on some deep level they understand this. Captivity is very unnatural and is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, such as the respite park for the bears from the bile farms. I'm not even sure I really agree with the breeding programs... Sometimes I think there's so much animal cruelty in the world that we should let them go extinct. They won't know it's happening and we're only keeping them around for ourselves anyway, aren't we? For future generations to appreciate. I personally don't care if our children get to see these animals or not. They're not here for our enjoyment.

Well that escalated quickly...

Lol you want me to list the number of ways that an animal can not have its needs met?  That's highly dependent on the animal.  Could be that food source dried up, could be humans destroying the environment that the animal needs, could be a lack of space or breeding partners. 

And yes zoos can recreate environments for animals where they are perfectly happy.  But like i said earlier its highly dependent on the animal, and is not always possible.  im sorry you had a bad experience as a zoo keeper, but that does not change the harshness of life outside of zoos.  Ill reiterate that i dont think that zoos should be around solely for our own pleasure if they in anyway compromise the lives of their inhabitants.  If that means the zoo cant have elephants, or tigers, or what have you then that's the case.  But lots of other animals have much easier to reproduce environments, as they don't hunt, are much less intelligent, and don't need as much space.

I agree that zoos can do a lot of damage, but there are clear pluses in many cases for zoo animals.  But your posts have gotten more radical as time has gone on, now embracing letting species go extinct and being against breeding programs, often one of the most positively view portions of a zoo.


Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Beorn on September 30, 2012, 01:24:59 PM

What do you think of the educational part of the Zoo? I'm always afraid that without a Zoo people would care even less for the rare species that you would otherwise never see, causing them to go extinct even sooner.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on September 30, 2012, 03:31:39 PM

What do you think of the educational part of the Zoo? I'm always afraid that without a Zoo people would care even less for the rare species that you would otherwise never see, causing them to go extinct even sooner.

He just said he might consider having them go extinct rather than be in a zoo.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: Beorn on September 30, 2012, 03:33:39 PM

What do you think of the educational part of the Zoo? I'm always afraid that without a Zoo people would care even less for the rare species that you would otherwise never see, causing them to go extinct even sooner.

He just said he might consider having them go extinct rather than be in a zoo.

Yes because they are treated badly. But I think they would be treated even worse if we wouldn't know about the wonders of nature.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on September 30, 2012, 03:39:34 PM

What do you think of the educational part of the Zoo? I'm always afraid that without a Zoo people would care even less for the rare species that you would otherwise never see, causing them to go extinct even sooner.

He just said he might consider having them go extinct rather than be in a zoo.

Yes because they are treated badly. But I think they would be treated even worse if we wouldn't know about the wonders of nature.

I agree that people need to be educated about them, i dont really see what that has to do with treatment of them.  Most animals in zoos are not things that the general public comes into contact with on regular basis.

I also think that he will argue that there are other means of learning about animals than the zoo, ones that don't involve permanently housing animals that don't need to be contained.

But I agree that zoos can have significant impacts on people in their communities, by making them aware of the situations that animals are currently finding themselves in.  I just dont know if he will change his mind.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: StarBright on September 30, 2012, 07:18:29 PM
Can you give me an example of an animal in its natural environment not getting its needs met? Apart from the usual ailments and hungry periods that all wild animals experience. I'm just not sure what you mean by this.

My point is zoos cannot recreate natural environments, therefore captive animals can never have lives as fulfilled and enriched as they would be in the wild - starvation, untreated wounds and all. These things are natural and on some deep level they understand this. Captivity is very unnatural and is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, such as the respite park for the bears from the bile farms. I'm not even sure I really agree with the breeding programs... Sometimes I think there's so much animal cruelty in the world that we should let them go extinct. They won't know it's happening and we're only keeping them around for ourselves anyway, aren't we? For future generations to appreciate. I personally don't care if our children get to see these animals or not. They're not here for our enjoyment.

Well that escalated quickly...

Lol you want me to list the number of ways that an animal can not have its needs met?  That's highly dependent on the animal.  Could be that food source dried up, could be humans destroying the environment that the animal needs, could be a lack of space or breeding partners. 

And yes zoos can recreate environments for animals where they are perfectly happy.  But like i said earlier its highly dependent on the animal, and is not always possible.  im sorry you had a bad experience as a zoo keeper, but that does not change the harshness of life outside of zoos.  Ill reiterate that i dont think that zoos should be around solely for our own pleasure if they in anyway compromise the lives of their inhabitants.  If that means the zoo cant have elephants, or tigers, or what have you then that's the case.  But lots of other animals have much easier to reproduce environments, as they don't hunt, are much less intelligent, and don't need as much space.

I agree that zoos can do a lot of damage, but there are clear pluses in many cases for zoo animals.  But your posts have gotten more radical as time has gone on, now embracing letting species go extinct and being against breeding programs, often one of the most positively view portions of a zoo.

I didn't have a particularly bad experience working at the zoo. I've visited zoos in different countries and none of them have been satisfactory. San Diego zoo was one of the worst I've seen. I've had this view of zoos since I was a kid.

As for the harshness of life outside of zoos vs life in captivity... I don't think we will ever agree on this point. In cases where the animal is harmed due to human interference, then yes - it might sometimes be better off in a zoo. Cases such as extreme habitat destruction and animal cruelty are good examples. I was under the impression we were discussing the natural problems that animals face in the wild, not human-driven ones. In which case I still believe that animals have the right to fend for themselves, for good or for bad, while maintaining their freedom.

I know I have radical views when it comes to animals. It's just that I don't think about them in terms of how humans can benefit from them. I think about what really would be best for them. It doesn't seem likely that humans will end worldwide animal cruelty any time soon, does it? As I said... If the animals have no knowledge that they're going extinct, what is the harm in letting them fade away? I would really like an answer to that question. What is the harm to them? Breeding programs are great for boosting numbers, but if extinction is the best thing for these animals then breeding programs are only slowing down the inevitable.

Look, I'm not saying we should promote the extinction of animals. I originally said that I sometimes think it might be for the best, and that I wonder if breeding programs are really helping the issue. Instead of taking the "animals have a right to live" route, open your mind and think about what would really benefit them the most, considering what humans subject them to.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: rooster on September 30, 2012, 09:42:01 PM
Wait, you've had this negative idea of zoos since childhood and you still became a zookeeper? That's interesting.
Title: Re: Zoos
Post by: StarBright on September 30, 2012, 10:09:02 PM
When I finished high school I had a certain career path in mind. The relevant qualification required me to work at a zoo while studying.