interestingasfuck

1364 readers

1 users here now

Please go to !interestingshare@lemmy.zip

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BoozeOrWater@lemm.ee

meldrik@lemmy.wtf

In 2007, after one of their gorillas, Bokito, escaped and attacked a women who stared at him every day, the Rotterdam Zoo started handing out glasses that tricked the gorillas to avoid stare (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by Blaze@reddthat.com to c/interestingasfuck@lemm.ee

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokito_(gorilla)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RadicalCandour@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To add to this, A lot of gorillas that are saved from unsafe/illegal conditions cannot go back into the wild. Places like The Rotterdam zoo provides a lot of enrichment for these animals that you won’t see at say, Joe’s roadside animal park.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why not save animals from unsafe/illegal conditions and provide enrichment, without turning the animals into an attraction?

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.

But they aren't necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I love when people like you suddenly come up with a hot take that absolutely no one has ever thought through ever in the past hundreds of years.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago

i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?

[–] Liz@midwest.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn't useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren't calloused assholes).

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

with minimal downsides

To me your view seems woefully ignorant, possibly even delusional:

https://northeastwildlife.org/why-do-zoo-animals-pace-back-and-forth/

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes I'm well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There's more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

they can be mitigated

But not eliminated.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago

You and I have different moral systems and you think that hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind, when I'm perfectly okay with causing a small harm in order to secure a much much greater good.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 7 months ago

Because people wouldn't support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.