383
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
383 points (96.8% liked)
interestingasfuck
1319 readers
1 users here now
Please go to !interestingshare@lemmy.zip
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
But they aren't necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.
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).
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.
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.
I don't understand this part of your sentence.
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.
It seems to me that we have different goals.
Obdurate.
Well wait, what's your goal? 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.
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.
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.
You're not very good at thinking beyond immediate consequences, are you?
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.
i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless
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.
Because people wouldn't support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.
That doesn't answer my question.
No one can answer the question of a sealion.
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.
They shouldn't.
Where is the evidence for that?
This doesn't require the animals to be put on display.
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?
By going to their habitats?
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.
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.
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.
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 🤷
Collectivist learns individualism speedrun.
Whey do you mean? We entirely dominate them, and transparently acknowledge all species on this planet are either our commercial resources, or our entertainment
If humans could put rainbows in a zoo they would.
https://youtu.be/0LoenypUcmI?si=g1RjEmZCFcfOirDp
Yes Hobbes.