43 ms·

> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action I think pictures have a much bigger impact on "moving" adults but

by wapz 9y ago

> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action I think pictures have a much bigger impact on "moving" adults but zoos and aquariums have a greater overall impact for children (just my opinion). What is the driving force behind moving animals to sanctuaries and protecting them? It's the love and care people have towards the animals and species, right? I'm not saying taking away zoos and aquariums are going to make humans cold blooded but I really think they help overall.

soundwave106 9y ago
I am wondering if with the upcoming generation this is as true, given that Internet video streaming and picture sharing is so much more prevalent compared to times past. Some of the most recent very popular memes have revolved around animals. The fact that Toys R Us sponsored the recent April the Giraffe phenomenon indicated to me that (beyond the logo idea) at least someone thought there was a significant audience of children watching. What's nice about new technology is it allows for opportunities to capture animal activity in remote natural environments, with minimal impact. For instance, the Katmai National Park "bear cam" in Brooks Falls, Alaska (where in season people watch grizzlies feed on salmon) is a rather popular webcam. Not only does the webcam reduce human impact, it equalizes: Brooks Falls is very remote, and thus it is very expensive to get there. The webcam brings a side of nature to everyone, that previously only the well-off would see. I think zoos and aquariums can still exist, but moving to an animal hospital / research / protection model versus the entertainment model of Sea World and the like makes sense. I hope the environmental movement recognizes that the former is still valuable.
jamesrcole 9y ago
> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action [...] Zoos only provides a little more than a photography. I disagree with the latter sentence. I think that seeing something in person -- whether an animal or a landscape -- is very different to seeing a photograph or video. That's why it's so different to travel somewhere to see something in person.
- II2II 9y ago
  Maybe seeing something in person has a greater impact than photography and cinematography, yet there are many ways to see wildlife other than a traditional aquarium or zoo. Whale watching tours are certainly available in coastal communities where whales frequent. Heck, you may even be able to catch a glimpse by simply taking a walk in the right parts of Vancouver at the right time. (Slightly off topic, but you'd be amazed at the wildlife that you come across in the highly urbanized parts of Vancouver because it is surrounded to the north and east by wilderness and has many rail corridors and parks that animals follow into the city.)
- nojvek 9y ago
  Seeing a Lion in caged zoo is nothing like seeing a Lion or a cheetah in the wild. They just look so bored and dead. Being raised in Kenya, when I visited the Seattle Zoo I was saddened. You can see from their eyes that they have lost hope. They just look very depressed. Seeing a Lion in the wild, you can see the pride in their eyes.

by wapz 9y ago

soundwave106 9y ago

I am wondering if with the upcoming generation this is as true, given that Internet video streaming and picture sharing is so much more prevalent compared to times past. Some of the most recent very popular memes have revolved around animals. The fact that Toys R Us sponsored the recent April the Giraffe phenomenon indicated to me that (beyond the logo idea) at least someone thought there was a significant audience of children watching. What's nice about new technology is it allows for opportunities to capture animal activity in remote natural environments, with minimal impact. For instance, the Katmai National Park "bear cam" in Brooks Falls, Alaska (where in season people watch grizzlies feed on salmon) is a rather popular webcam. Not only does the webcam reduce human impact, it equalizes: Brooks Falls is very remote, and thus it is very expensive to get there. The webcam brings a side of nature to everyone, that previously only the well-off would see. I think zoos and aquariums can still exist, but moving to an animal hospital / research / protection model versus the entertainment model of Sea World and the like makes sense. I hope the environmental movement recognizes that the former is still valuable.

jamesrcole 9y ago

> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action [...] Zoos only provides a little more than a photography. I disagree with the latter sentence. I think that seeing something in person -- whether an animal or a landscape -- is very different to seeing a photograph or video. That's why it's so different to travel somewhere to see something in person.

II2II 9y ago
Maybe seeing something in person has a greater impact than photography and cinematography, yet there are many ways to see wildlife other than a traditional aquarium or zoo. Whale watching tours are certainly available in coastal communities where whales frequent. Heck, you may even be able to catch a glimpse by simply taking a walk in the right parts of Vancouver at the right time. (Slightly off topic, but you'd be amazed at the wildlife that you come across in the highly urbanized parts of Vancouver because it is surrounded to the north and east by wilderness and has many rail corridors and parks that animals follow into the city.)
nojvek 9y ago
Seeing a Lion in caged zoo is nothing like seeing a Lion or a cheetah in the wild. They just look so bored and dead. Being raised in Kenya, when I visited the Seattle Zoo I was saddened. You can see from their eyes that they have lost hope. They just look very depressed. Seeing a Lion in the wild, you can see the pride in their eyes.