4 ms·
> cause you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat. It’s mostly for kids, it will be quite dangerous to go see m
by usaphp 9y ago
> cause you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat.
It’s mostly for kids, it will be quite dangerous to go see most of the jungle animals with toddlers. No?
- maxxxxx 9y agoMaybe toddlers don't need to see live jungle animals.
- munificent 9y agoDo you want those toddlers to grow up with a deep enough appreciation for animals and the natural environment to invest real resources in conservation when they grow up -- even if it means conserving environments in places like Africa and South America that they will likely never see in person? People only put effort into things they care about, and they only care about what they feel connected too. If we don't make wild animals real to a signification fraction of the voting population, we won't have wild animals for much longer.
- rtx 9y agoStories can do a better job.
- munificent 9y agoI'm sorry, but I simply don't think that's true. Nothing compares to the visceral experience of seeing a live animal first-hand in the flesh.
- rtx 9y agoNot true for the original point. Otherwise we would have less meat eaters. Look into Panchatantra and percentage of meat eaters in India.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI don't know if zoos are the right way. They seem to make people think that wild animals sit around the whole day in tight spaces and play with beach balls. Or people may think that Orcas have nothing better to do than interacting with humans. I think more can be done with documentaries or making wild places more accessible. I think Yellowstone is a good example for people learning how nature can look.
- HarryHirsch 9y agomostly for kids As an adult you are not supposed to enjoy seeing wild animals?