5 ms·

You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out i

You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? And if you want to talk about starvation, then let's talk about the source of Lions struggling out in the world, like human encroachment on their hunting grounds, farming, deforestation, etc. A theoretical zoo paradise could work, but such a zoo would look more like a wildlife refuge than what we're typically used it. And members of the public may even have to put up with wild predators actually killed their food, and not seeing some of the wildlife very often. Most zoos have small enclosures for economic reasons, not because it is what the animals themselves need.

marcoperaza 8y ago
>You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? And if you want to talk about starvation, then let's talk about the source of Lions struggling out in the world, like human encroachment on their hunting grounds, farming, deforestation, etc. Do you know what happens to male lions in the wild? A stronger male lion takes their mate, kills their children, and then kills them. And this is just the ones lucky enough to survive that long. Male lions are kicked out of their pride as soon as they reach adolescence. Most don’t even make it to adulthood or survive long enough to mate. And if you’ve never seen an animal kill another animal, they don’t exactly prioritize a quick and painless death. Life as a wild lion is nasty, brutish, and short. It’s incredible, the the romantic notions that people dream up for themselves.
- cbluth 8y ago
  Kinda sounds like you don't like the zoo.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Isn't that, like, their natural way of being? Wtf is being proposed here, to keep lions at capture to avoid the parts of their lifestyle we don't like or consider too savage? That which you described is what MAKES a lion.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. As an aside: I personally don’t think it actually matters whether captivity is better than nature, but I’m pointing out arguendo that it probably isn’t. I think it is fine, short of wanton cruelty, for us humans to use animals for our own ends.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.
      - marcoperaza 8y ago
        That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).
sandworm101 8y ago
You are judging all zoos by the worst of them. Go look at a good zoo. None let tigers live so naturally as to kill thier own dinner (cage fighting is evil) but the animals are certainly not bored.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Link to a "good zoo" with a lion enclosure. I'm legitimately interested because I've been to zoos that pat themselves on the back for being larger than average and it is still completely inadequate.
  - lozenge 8y ago
    Can you explain what an adequate size is and how you would know that? I learned that in the wild a territory can be 20 square kilometres, which I guess is an upper bound.
appleflaxen 8y ago
> You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? You are making a straw man argument. There is no reading of their position for which this is a reasonable interpretation.
- coldtea 8y ago
  It sounds like a very valid interpretation of what the parent said -- that being in a zoo is often better because animals in the wild often live in misery (they "starve" or "have ticks"). Except if you have in mind some huge zoos, where animals run, hunt, and explore a large area free, the parent's is a perfectly reasonable understanding of what the grandparent wrote, not a strawman.
nck4222 8y ago
He said zoos can be ethical, not all zoos currently in existence are ethical. No where in his post do I see him arguing for putting a lion in a cage small enough that it can't run.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > No where in his post do I see him arguing for putting a lion in a cage small enough that it can't run. That's arguing for zoos in general. There aren't any zoos with large enough enclosures, only nature reserves. A zoo is putting a large animal in a small enough cage so that the public can wonder passed and look at it, that isn't compatible with a large enough enclosure for the size animal we're discussing. If you want to go ahead and link me to one of these "ethical zoos" that has a lion enclosure, I'd welcome it.
  - nck4222 8y ago
    http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/lion http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/lion Here's some info on the conservation efforts they do: http://institute.sandiegozoo.org/species/african-lion http://institute.sandiegozoo.org/species/african-lion Here's info about where they breed them and care for them: http://sdzsafaripark.org/wildlife/lion-camp http://sdzsafaripark.org/wildlife/lion-camp
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      For the number of lions, it is still a small enclosure. You can see the small scale here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jJ6Ag5WlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jJ6Ag5WlM
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    It's not quite a zoo, but check out The Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, CO. https://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/ https://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/
ovao 8y ago
It’s worth pointing out that some (many?) animals are in zoos because — for one reason or another — circumstances are such that they are otherwise incapable of surving in the wild. You’re right that enclosure size is mostly determined by business concerns rather than animal satisfaction. Practically speaking, however, the enclosures can rarely be large enough to completely suit an animal’s needs.
Grue3 8y ago
Most animals live longer in captivity. So it's in fact unethical to leave them tend for themselves in the wild. >And members of the public may even have to put up with wild predators actually killed their food Isn't it unethical in regards to "food"? Or are only animals at the top of the food chain deserving of "ethics"? Maybe it's more ethical to cage all the carnivores (it could be argued that meat-eating is unethical in itself), thus allowing a larger number of prey animals to roam free.

marcoperaza 8y ago

>You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? And if you want to talk about starvation, then let's talk about the source of Lions struggling out in the world, like human encroachment on their hunting grounds, farming, deforestation, etc. Do you know what happens to male lions in the wild? A stronger male lion takes their mate, kills their children, and then kills them. And this is just the ones lucky enough to survive that long. Male lions are kicked out of their pride as soon as they reach adolescence. Most don’t even make it to adulthood or survive long enough to mate. And if you’ve never seen an animal kill another animal, they don’t exactly prioritize a quick and painless death. Life as a wild lion is nasty, brutish, and short. It’s incredible, the the romantic notions that people dream up for themselves.

cbluth 8y ago
Kinda sounds like you don't like the zoo.
coldtea 8y ago
Isn't that, like, their natural way of being? Wtf is being proposed here, to keep lions at capture to avoid the parts of their lifestyle we don't like or consider too savage? That which you described is what MAKES a lion.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. As an aside: I personally don’t think it actually matters whether captivity is better than nature, but I’m pointing out arguendo that it probably isn’t. I think it is fine, short of wanton cruelty, for us humans to use animals for our own ends.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >It is their natural way of being, but that doesn’t make it inherently morally superior to captivity by humans. Of course it does. >The way humans live in the wild is pretty different than in civilization too. The civilisation is human's wild. We built this, it was not imposed upon us.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >That’s the naturalistic fallacy. You need to do more than appeal to nature to make that argument. You have to give a reason why that nature, or at least nature in general, is superior. It's a sad day when you need to give a reason why captivity is worst than letting lions live free. In the end, even genocide is not good or bad objectively. It depends on a value judgement, which from a rational perspective it's still a leap of faith or "fallacy". Either you acknowledge the value of freedom for animals or you don't. But to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy" let's perform an empirical, scientific experiment: let's keep you captive in a cage for several years, and see how you fare, and whether you find it alright afterwards. We'll also have a control group and everything of course, lest we mess up the experiment. >Also, by the logic you're using, you can just as well say that possibly living in captivity is the lion's new nature. After all, humans are part of nature and our capturing of animals then is too. In the lion's case, it's a nature imposed on them, so there's a difference. Just because we're all parts of nature doesn't mean we enjoy or thrive under everything that happens in nature: we wouldn't enjoy being eaten by lions or being kept captive in cages by higher sentient animals (e.g. aliens).

sandworm101 8y ago

You are judging all zoos by the worst of them. Go look at a good zoo. None let tigers live so naturally as to kill thier own dinner (cage fighting is evil) but the animals are certainly not bored.

Someone1234 8y ago
Link to a "good zoo" with a lion enclosure. I'm legitimately interested because I've been to zoos that pat themselves on the back for being larger than average and it is still completely inadequate.
- lozenge 8y ago
  Can you explain what an adequate size is and how you would know that? I learned that in the wild a territory can be 20 square kilometres, which I guess is an upper bound.

appleflaxen 8y ago

> You're arguing that a lion that sits in such a small cage it cannot run, has nothing to hunt, and little to do, is better off because they might get ticks out in the wild? Really? You are making a straw man argument. There is no reading of their position for which this is a reasonable interpretation.

coldtea 8y ago
It sounds like a very valid interpretation of what the parent said -- that being in a zoo is often better because animals in the wild often live in misery (they "starve" or "have ticks"). Except if you have in mind some huge zoos, where animals run, hunt, and explore a large area free, the parent's is a perfectly reasonable understanding of what the grandparent wrote, not a strawman.

nck4222 8y ago

He said zoos can be ethical, not all zoos currently in existence are ethical. No where in his post do I see him arguing for putting a lion in a cage small enough that it can't run.

Someone1234 8y ago
> No where in his post do I see him arguing for putting a lion in a cage small enough that it can't run. That's arguing for zoos in general. There aren't any zoos with large enough enclosures, only nature reserves. A zoo is putting a large animal in a small enough cage so that the public can wonder passed and look at it, that isn't compatible with a large enough enclosure for the size animal we're discussing. If you want to go ahead and link me to one of these "ethical zoos" that has a lion enclosure, I'd welcome it.
- nck4222 8y ago
  http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/lion http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/lion Here's some info on the conservation efforts they do: http://institute.sandiegozoo.org/species/african-lion http://institute.sandiegozoo.org/species/african-lion Here's info about where they breed them and care for them: http://sdzsafaripark.org/wildlife/lion-camp http://sdzsafaripark.org/wildlife/lion-camp
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    For the number of lions, it is still a small enclosure. You can see the small scale here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jJ6Ag5WlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jJ6Ag5WlM
- LukeShu 8y ago
  It's not quite a zoo, but check out The Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, CO. https://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/ https://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/

ovao 8y ago

It’s worth pointing out that some (many?) animals are in zoos because — for one reason or another — circumstances are such that they are otherwise incapable of surving in the wild. You’re right that enclosure size is mostly determined by business concerns rather than animal satisfaction. Practically speaking, however, the enclosures can rarely be large enough to completely suit an animal’s needs.

Grue3 8y ago

Most animals live longer in captivity. So it's in fact unethical to leave them tend for themselves in the wild. >And members of the public may even have to put up with wild predators actually killed their food Isn't it unethical in regards to "food"? Or are only animals at the top of the food chain deserving of "ethics"? Maybe it's more ethical to cage all the carnivores (it could be argued that meat-eating is unethical in itself), thus allowing a larger number of prey animals to roam free.