you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Wouldn't the better solution be to simply not turn gorillas into a public attraction?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Generating awareness and sympathy is probably the biggest factor in keeping many endangered species alive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    with minimal downsides

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

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    they can be mitigated

    But not eliminated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind

    I don't understand this part of your sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You keep bringing up that zoos cause harm. This seems to be a deal-breaker for you. It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after. In my view, it's acceptable to cause a small amount of harm, if you get significantly greater good from doing so. Of course the details matter, and I don't believe either of us would argue our position in every scenario, but in this case I find the manageable harm caused by zoos to be worth the increased interest in wildlife conservation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after.

    It seems to me that we have different goals.

    manageable harm

    Obdurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well wait, what's your goal? Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe get over the idea that human actions are needed in order to conserve the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, there are people out there who would destroy the environment if we just sat back and did nothing so.... Yeah gotta take action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    LOL, we've got to hurt animals by imprisoning them and charging tickets for people to ogle at them, because otherwise bad people will do bad things. I see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're not very good at thinking beyond immediate consequences, are you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You have no idea what I'm good or not good at. Nor could you from this very limited exchange. You just want to find a reason to dismiss what I've said so that you can remain unchallenged in your bubble where you're saving the world and other people are the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    ... What. I don't even know where to start with that. Ecological conservation is about money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I'm not talking about tourists viewing exotic animals from far off places, I'm talking about people going into the countryside that's near to them and seeing the wildlife there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments