4 ms·

Firstly I think characterizing the natural state of animals as "misery" is very misleading and using that to justify caging them seems strange. Also, I don't th

Firstly I think characterizing the natural state of animals as "misery" is very misleading and using that to justify caging them seems strange. Also, I don't think that zoos are inherently unethical but they need to always be cognizant of maximizing the animals welfare, which is what the zoos talked about in the article are doing.

chongli 8y ago
I don't know how else to describe it when I see a starving bear with mange, infested with parasites. Misery sounds like the most appropriate word for it. It's not controversial around here to say that humans are having an enormous impact on the natural environment. The distinction between 'zoo' and 'wild' is not a binary one; humans effects are seen in both. Lots of people have this romantic image of the wild as this pristine place where everything lives in beautiful harmony. In reality it's much more like the Hunger Games than we'd care to admit.
- tdb7893 8y ago
  The fact is that most animals in the wild simply aren't doing as terribly as you imply. My wife researches dog welfare and my understanding (which by the way is still not very good at all) is that most emotions don't map perfectly from human to animals so the best thing to look at would be chronic stress response and while animals in the wild are more stressed out (and there's a valid argument to be made that many species are actually happier in captivity) to characterize the levels of most wild animals as "misery" simply isn't true.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Most of them aren't currently doing all that bad. But some of them are and most of them eventually will be miserable in the future. Point at a random lion or wolf in the wild and they are happy, loaded with itchy parasites, but fine. Eventually they will all either get sick or be injured. Prey animals die quickly, ripped apart by the lions and wolves. Top predators are doomed to suffer. Their final days, weeks, sometimes years of suffering with a debilitating injury are not pleasant. That misery is what a good zoo removes as compensation for captivity. It is the least we can do. Whether that exchange is fair is a judgement call, but when making it we must remember that our ideals of nature and natural existence are not necessarily universal. Many a wolf might gladly live inside a fence in exchange for never being hungry, cold or itchy again.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I don't know how else to describe it when I see a starving bear with mange, infested with parasites. Misery sounds like the most appropriate word for it. How about life? Not to mention that the starving could be due to human disruption to its habitat...

chongli 8y ago

I don't know how else to describe it when I see a starving bear with mange, infested with parasites. Misery sounds like the most appropriate word for it. It's not controversial around here to say that humans are having an enormous impact on the natural environment. The distinction between 'zoo' and 'wild' is not a binary one; humans effects are seen in both. Lots of people have this romantic image of the wild as this pristine place where everything lives in beautiful harmony. In reality it's much more like the Hunger Games than we'd care to admit.

tdb7893 8y ago
The fact is that most animals in the wild simply aren't doing as terribly as you imply. My wife researches dog welfare and my understanding (which by the way is still not very good at all) is that most emotions don't map perfectly from human to animals so the best thing to look at would be chronic stress response and while animals in the wild are more stressed out (and there's a valid argument to be made that many species are actually happier in captivity) to characterize the levels of most wild animals as "misery" simply isn't true.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Most of them aren't currently doing all that bad. But some of them are and most of them eventually will be miserable in the future. Point at a random lion or wolf in the wild and they are happy, loaded with itchy parasites, but fine. Eventually they will all either get sick or be injured. Prey animals die quickly, ripped apart by the lions and wolves. Top predators are doomed to suffer. Their final days, weeks, sometimes years of suffering with a debilitating injury are not pleasant. That misery is what a good zoo removes as compensation for captivity. It is the least we can do. Whether that exchange is fair is a judgement call, but when making it we must remember that our ideals of nature and natural existence are not necessarily universal. Many a wolf might gladly live inside a fence in exchange for never being hungry, cold or itchy again.
coldtea 8y ago
>I don't know how else to describe it when I see a starving bear with mange, infested with parasites. Misery sounds like the most appropriate word for it. How about life? Not to mention that the starving could be due to human disruption to its habitat...