383
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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/interestingasfuck@lemm.ee
84 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
[+] -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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

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

    Zoos are about money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •