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