Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world? Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.

Crappy "documentaries" ain't it by the way. Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild. Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won't even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?

By going to their habitats?

obviously critical in making people care about protecting it

No. Zoos are not critical in making people care about protecting wildlife.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago

Taking tourists into natural habitats is way more destructive than having a few specimens on display in artificial habitats.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?

They shouldn't.

Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.

Where is the evidence for that?

Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild.

This doesn't require the animals to be put on display.

Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won't even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.

Or we could stop destroying the natural habitats of those animals instead of making a profit with the remaining individuals.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Do you need evidence that most people have a hard time being invested in something entirely abstract which they will never interact with for their whole life? Something they only ever saw in school books? Which is what animals would be for a massive part of the population.

Kids nowadays at best interact with pets, they know the horses are what people rode in those old western movies and cows are what makes the milk in the carton from the grocery store. Chicken grows in nugget form.

And these are all domesticated animals, not at all exotic in most places around the world. How would they ever come into contact with all the other fascinating creatures we share our planet with? Develop a passion for their protection?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Zoos are about money, yes. That's not the point under discussion. I'm taking issue with the line 'species don't have inherent value'. You're basically saying it's ok to drive species extinct as long as its done humanely.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

ou're basically saying it's ok to drive species extinct

You should read my comment again. This is not what I am saying.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's certainly how it comes across when you claim species don't have inherent value. Why would we bother to preserve and protect something that's valueless? You may have meant something else, but judging by the downvotes nobody else is getting your intended meaning either.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

I can't control what people want to interpret into what I write 🤷