Zoos

[Red]

Here in NYC we got like five freakin' zoos plus an aquarium and I enjoyed going to the Bronx Zoo when I was a lad. But even though these zoos are a pretty big part of the city, I've been thinking we should close them down or reevaluate how we have them set up.

There are definitely ethical concerns with zoos, namely the depression animals get due to the confinement and lack of genuine stimulation. However, there could be an argument to make that zoos can serve educational purposes, in that they can potentially get people (especially children) to realize that animals are thinking sentient beings with emotions, making them more likely to consume less meat, and seeing it in person might have more of an effect than just video. I don't think there is any good evidence of that though. There might be some short-term benefits but I can see 99% of them stopping after a while, and they might just apply moral standards to every animal except the ones that we eat.

Is there any way to make zoos more ethical? Are there any potential benefits to zoos?

[Jamie in Chile]

Do you know that years ago black people were occasionally put in cages and transported around as an exhibit. You could have made the same argument at the time to defend that. So your argument could be speciesist.

I think in the short term the right policy is to forbid taking any animals from the wild to zoos, and to require zoos to decline their populations over time.

The relationship with money is worth looking at. Places with animals should be able to make money only from rescuing animals and treating them well, not from people coming to look around.

Over time zoos can then eventually be phased out.

[Red]

Do you know that years ago black people were occasionally put in cages and transported around as an exhibit. You could have made the same argument at the time to defend that. So your argument could be speciesist.

Damn well when you put it like that...

Be careful with how and when you use the term speciesist by the way. It doesn't really mean thinking species have more moral value than others (since they do; Human -> Pig -> Chicken -> Fish -> Ant), it more means thinking that animals only exist for humans to exploit *because* we're superior. Big difference.

I think in the short term the right policy is to forbid taking any animals from the wild to zoos, and to require zoos to decline their populations over time.

The relationship with money is worth looking at. Places with animals should be able to make money only from rescuing animals and treating them well, not from people coming to look around.

Over time zoos can then eventually be phased out.

Those seem to be good ideas. This is pretty much what's going to happen with animal agriculture, where farms are banned from breeding new animals, then the populations gradually declined until meat production is no longer economically viable.

I'm compelled to run for mayor just to do your suggestion. But that'd probably be unpopular.

[Jamie in Chile]

I agree that some species have less moral value but I think speciesism is about more than saying animals only exist for others to exploit. As I see it, it is about something been discriminatory or unfair even after allowing for relative moral value.

[Jamie in Chile]

Looks like 2 weeks now where only you and I have posted, apart from one short post from Jebus.

[Red]

I agree that some species have less moral value but I think speciesism is about more than saying animals only exist for others to exploit. As I see it, it is about something been discriminatory or unfair even after allowing for relative moral value.

It's a complicated issue. We can start a new thread on it if you'd like, we need some more activity as you pointed out. I've been pretty busy with school and making videos I haven't had much time for new posts (and it seems out other active members are pretty busy too).