> If we want people to see nature, we have to preserve actual nature and encourage people to visit it. Visiting a zoo is not visiting nature, and I personally w

> If we want people to see nature, we have to preserve actual nature and encourage people to visit it. Visiting a zoo is not visiting nature, and I personally worry that equivocating the two is dangerous. I don’t find this compelling, and think that you are missing the point: visiting zoos is a way to inspire people to care about nature such that they will want to preserve it. I was at a zoological society fundraiser where Joel Sartore, founder of the Nat Geo “Photo Ark” series, was the keynote speaker. In it he talks about the intrinsic good of nature and biodiversity. Because it is a good in and of itself, how can we protect it? His argument was kids today aren’t connected to nature in the same way generations past have been connected to nature. With TV, video games, smart phones, etc., kids generally don’t spend as much time outside as they used to, and if they do, there is a higher chance it is in a more Urban area than years past. Zoos, he argues, are one of the few remaining places a kid can see nature up close, and hopefully see the intrinsic good of nature to “give a shit” about it (his words). Once they do “give a shit,” they are more likely to want to protect it once they are grown up. So zoos protect and preserve nature (an intrinsic good) and hopefully inspire younger generations to care about nature and grow up to want to protect it (instrumental good). I found his argument compelling, and don’t think declaring that people should simply “preserve actual nature” would be very effective.