3 ms·

Zoos are a lesser evil argument, locally they are not the best for the animals but they provide globally long-term benefits for humans and nature as well.

• dwaltrip 2y ago
  What’s the alternative? The implied greater evil? A world with no zoos and less appreciation and consideration for nature as well as the long term necessity of caring for it? I’m wondering about creating more nature parks instead of zoos. Of course not as accessible for people in cities, but could be a much better compromise. In general, we should avoid putting animals in small cages as much as possible.
  • daveslash 2y ago
    Speaking of nature parks instead of zoos, the San Diego Wild Safari Park is just that. Very large enclosed pastures with multiple species living alongside each other.
  • calf 2y ago
    Nature park is still basically a zoo, and yes the lesser evil is the sacrifice of animal wellbeing to ensure that the masses of urbanized humans get to physically see these animals. It is an inevitable tradeoff and there is no way around it, no euphemism for zoos or general appeals about animal wellbeing can paper over that. If the benefit of putting wild animals in small zoos is some sliver of human cultural contact with the wilds, then that calculus is worth it, however paradoxical and politically incorrect it may appear to be. That's the argument.
• James_K 2y ago
  The implication here is that it would be impossible to fund conservation without zoos. As a counter argument: we could just do it. Increase taxes by the amount people spend in zoos and spend that on conservation. The only argument in favour of the zoo over that other approach is that people want to look at animals in cages.
  • thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > As a counter argument: we could just do it. Increase taxes by the amount people spend in zoos and spend that on conservation. Why do you think we could do that? I say we could just increase taxes by $5,000 per person per year and spend it on breeding and releasing mosquitoes in Los Angeles.
    • James_K 2y ago
      Yes, we could do that, but what would be the benefit? I'm saying that whether we want nature conserved and whether we want them to be in cages for us to look at are entirely separate issues that should be evaluated separately. The best argument in favour of zoos is assuming that the people who want to look at dancing bears would be sufficiently enraged by their absence that they would decide to condemn the whole of nature in not doing conservation. As for why I think we could do it, the answer is because we obviously can. The world become a much worse place once you realise the many things of which humanity is capable, yet which we choose not to do.
      • thaumasiotes 2y ago
        I suggest to you that if you try to make that happen, you'll find that in fact you can't. Not everything you can imagine people doing is something that it's actually possible to make them do.
        • James_K 2y ago
          > We can't do it because people won't do it. This logic is at the root of almost everyone who has been complicit in evil through history. It would once have been said about the abolition of slavery, gay rights, etc. It is a lazy attitude that's entirely self-justifying. Change is often opposed primarily by the great mass of people who use this same logic, in spite of them recognising that the change would be good.