34
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3908 readers
42 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The argument for zoos protecting animals is about allowing regular people to see wild animals up close, allowing to humanize/ empathize with them enough to actually care about protecting the ones still in the wild.
Are zoos perfect? No.
In an ideal world, would zoos exist? No.
Are they the only link that most people ever experience to nature, and especially to nature that doesn't exist within driving distance? Sadly, yes.
And that experience of seeing and empathizing with animals is hugely important to driving funding for conservation movements/ orgs. A water buffalo is just a damp cow in another country for a lot of people, until they actually see one.
Here are some other ways zoos assist in animal conservation:
While I know anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, I personally felt a lot of empathy towards the animals when I took my son last year. I think it is hard to read every plaque in front of the exhibits and not be sad. Almost every plaque says something about how the animals exhibited are struggling in the wild due to everything humans do to the planet, and each one gives suggestions on how we can improve the world. I may be a rare case though because I can understand and acknowledge the environmental impact we have as humans, and I actually read the plaques. I think you may be right about the majority of people who go to the zoo, but I do feel like it is effective if people engage with the lessons that zoos try to teach.
That would be nearly impossible to quantify, but research around this area shows that empathizing with animals through accurate understanding of them is important for conservation support.
That's quite an uneducated viewpoint. Most animals (including us) move a very small part of the day. Finding food, finding mates, etc. Lions will sleep or rest for 21 hours a day. Their active hours tend to be dawn and dusk.
Beyond that, Nobody is physically poking any animals, that's not how zoos work. As someone who worked at a zoo bad behaviour is rare, it happens, but it's dealt with.
Way to ignore the second half
No, the article is full of rhetorical fallacies designed to influence you towards their view that zoos aren't good.
Take this part about conservation funding:
To which the opposition interviewee states:
That is not a direct response to the first assertion. The first quote didn't assert that the majority of funds went to conservation, just that the funds that do are both significant and critical to conservation partners.
To which the clearly very biased author then responds:
Soooo? You think getting rid of those funds is better for conservation?
If you read the part on breeding, they do something similar; they embed one section, that acknowledges that zoos have in fact been key to successful breeding and reintroduction programs, inside several quotes of personal opinions: the first one literally from a newspaper opinion piece, and the second from an actual scientist who acknowledges that the breeding programs do work, but just doesn't personally think that is justification enough for zoos.
This article is biased trash. There are plenty of arguments to have about the ethics of zoos, but this article is not dealing with those head-on, because they're not clear-cut. Instead, it's trying to trick you into thinking that none of the actual positive impacts of zoos exist.
This is how smart misinformation works; use leading language and selective quotes to make the viewers think you said something you didn't, so you can always go, "Oh, but I never SAID the breeding programs don't work, or that the funding isn't important!"
You forgot to switch sockpuppets. Also you didn't notice that I'm not the same user as the other one. Stunning powers of observation on display here.
Not sure what you are talking about with the sockpuppets bit, but please try to be polite when someone confuses you for another user in the thread. It's a simple mistake and there's no need to be mean about it. Thanks!
From the original article
[...]
You fell for the rhetorical trick in the first quote. Biodiversity is one tiny aspect of conservation, but they hoped you would conflate that with just meaning the rest aren't about conservation at all. Researching medicine needed to treat animals is conservation, but has nothing to do with biodiversity, as an example.
The article is full of bad-faith interpretations like this.
I didn't talk about people going for education by reading placards, I talked about people experiencing humanization of the animals by seeing them in person.
One study also showed a link between vaccines and autism. There is a study out there for any claim you want to make: reproducing the outcome (and showing a cause) in future studies makes an actual point.
The study of zoo research output looked at how article were tagged. The conservation tag was biodiversity conservation...
I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. Further, from other responses it appears you are fairly willing to attack other users in comments for trivial things and I would prefer not to be on the receiving end of that