That image is quite unsettling.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)
interestingasfuck
1330 readers
1 users here now
Please go to !interestingshare@lemmy.zip
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
All of these people are scheming something comically devious.
Wouldn't the better solution be to simply not turn gorillas into a public attraction?
Generating awareness and sympathy is probably the biggest factor in keeping many endangered species alive
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.
Why not save animals from unsafe/illegal conditions and provide enrichment, without turning the animals into an attraction?
Because people wouldn't support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.
Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
But they aren't necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.
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.
i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless
Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.
So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?
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).
with minimal downsides
To me your view seems woefully ignorant, possibly even delusional:
https://northeastwildlife.org/why-do-zoo-animals-pace-back-and-forth/
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.
they can be mitigated
But not eliminated.
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.
Another lie of capitalism. Species don't have inherent value, individuals of a species do. Which is why bad treatment of those individuals can't be justified by appealing to the species' survival. It's about money, like everywhere else.
... What. I don't even know where to start with that. Ecological conservation is about money?
Zoos are about money.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Taking tourists into natural habitats is way more destructive than having a few specimens on display in artificial habitats.
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.
ou're basically saying it's ok to drive species extinct
You should read my comment again. This is not what I am saying.
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.
I can't control what people want to interpret into what I write 🤷