Philosophical Vegan Forum

Just read an article that admits that "even the most zoo-firndly amongst us probably harbour mixed feelings about the undeniable psychological and physical toll that captivity takes on animals"..... BUT... the solution is to make a better zoo, not to eliminate them.

http://gizmodo.com/a-redesigned-zoo-whe ... 1613010276

Seriously? Its amazing how some can identify that animals in captivity is a problem, but not come to the logical conclusion that, i dont know... not have them in captivity? ugh.

Some people do not seem to realize that a lot of those animals are still a species alive today is because of captivity.

With the decline of their homes, deforestation and them being on the decline anyway without human interaction. Some only survive because of it.
Wolves in America would be gone completely if we did not held them in captivity. Bred them and released them back in many places.

Oregon I believe has a small wolf population once again now because of this.

Some of them, its a manner of sickness or vanishing food or territory. Some its mostly human reasons. It's not like they are unhappy there. A good zoo or preserve with a large enough area for them to get around on that treats them well enough is fine.

Some people do not seem to realize that a lot of those animals are still a species alive today is because of captivity.

that is not the primary function of a zoo. A zoo's primary reason for existing is to exhibit animals for our entertainment. I have no problem with sanctuaries that are trying to save a species from going extinct, but a zoo has a vested interest in continuing to exist and exploit.

It's not like they are unhappy there. A good zoo or preserve with a large enough area for them to get around on that treats them well enough is fine.

And you know this how? Many of the animals found in zoos typically live in massive ecosystems that even the largest of zoos cannot recreate. What basis are you claiming knowledge of what other animals do or do not feel?

Shadow Fox wrote: Some of them, its a manner of sickness or vanishing food or territory. Some its mostly human reasons.

Some? Why do you keep saying that? The main cause of animal extinction is entirely human results. Yes animals may die from sickness, but vanishing of food is due to either hunter/poachers and vanishing territory is almost always due to humans, with the exception of forest fires. I can't think of one situation of where modern day animals have been driven to extinction without the interference of humans.

A zoo will never be ideal for animals because it's primary focus is money and customers.

In my country there are sanctuaries that allow people to visit and it's so much more awesome. We have an ape sanctuary for example which main focus is on saving great apes and monkey species from extinction while at the same time allowing people to visit like it's a zoo. The monkeys roam free in trees and you can interact freely with them (you're not allowed to bring snacks or other things they might steal though) and all these apes and monkeys are rescued. They also give most of their money to conservation organizations that fight for keeping the habitat of these apes.

So not only does the sanctuary help and save these animals but they've also managed to turn it into a zoo like experience where people can interact and experience them. I think that's the ideal alternative for a zoo.

Kanade wrote:In my country there are sanctuaries that allow people to visit and it's so much more awesome. We have an ape sanctuary for example which main focus is on saving great apes and monkey species from extinction while at the same time allowing people to visit like it's a zoo. The monkeys roam free in trees and you can interact freely with them (you're not allowed to bring snacks or other things they might steal though) and all these apes and monkeys are rescued. They also give most of their money to conservation organizations that fight for keeping the habitat of these apes.

So not only does the sanctuary help and save these animals but they've also managed to turn it into a zoo like experience where people can interact and experience them. I think that's the ideal alternative for a zoo.

Are you referring to Apenheul here? Did not know that they had this good intentions, most of the time they just want to make money.

Volenta wrote:

Kanade wrote:In my country there are sanctuaries that allow people to visit and it's so much more awesome. We have an ape sanctuary for example which main focus is on saving great apes and monkey species from extinction while at the same time allowing people to visit like it's a zoo. The monkeys roam free in trees and you can interact freely with them (you're not allowed to bring snacks or other things they might steal though) and all these apes and monkeys are rescued. They also give most of their money to conservation organizations that fight for keeping the habitat of these apes.

So not only does the sanctuary help and save these animals but they've also managed to turn it into a zoo like experience where people can interact and experience them. I think that's the ideal alternative for a zoo.

Are you referring to Apenheul here? Did not know that they had this good intentions, most of the time they just want to make money.

Yeah when you look at their site you'll see many links to their funding and projects with the Apenheul Natuurbehoudfonds to help conservation of the natural habitat of apes. There's also many apes that are born there which is really helpful considering they're nearing extinction. Atleast i am not aware of any money making schemes.

You can't discount the public education value of zoos entirely, even if they are less than ideal environments.

are you suggesting that zoos actually could be morally acceptable? Im having a hard time believing that you would be defending the industry that thrives and sustains itself on animal exploitation (regardless if its the nice possible exploitation or the worst). No matter how nice they make the zoos, it still is a pretty prison cell for hundreds of species of animals, none of whom consented to the arrangement.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: are you suggesting that zoos actually could be morally acceptable?

Could be, yes.

The rest of my post went into more detail on what is wrong with zoos, and what could be fixed. I don't really want to re-write it though.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Im having a hard time believing that you would be defending the industry that thrives and sustains itself on animal exploitation (regardless if its the nice possible exploitation or the worst).

I'm not. I said they would have to be non-profit, and sustained by guaranteed income so they could take care of animals properly without the incentive to mistreat them to save money and increase the bottom line.

That is by definition not an industry.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:No matter how nice they make the zoos, it still is a pretty prison cell for hundreds of species of animals, none of whom consented to the arrangement.

Like I said, the cages should be turned around, and the human walkways and areas should be protected with cages rather than the animals isolated in cells.

Where is your original post, brimstoneSalad?

While I may agree with you that it has the potential to make it (theoretically) morally justifiable (maybe not for all species), I'm not so sure whether it has a significant education value. It definitely makes it more fun and memorable for the kids, but what is it that they could learn which they could not learn at school?