In 2007, after one of their gorillas, Bokito, escaped and attacked a women who stared at him every day, the Rotterdam Zoo started handing out glasses that tricked the gorillas to avoid stare
In 2007, after one of their gorillas, Bokito, escaped and attacked a women who stared at him every day, the Rotterdam Zoo started handing out glasses that tricked the gorillas to avoid stare
You're viewing part of a thread.
Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
But they aren't necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.
Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.
So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?
Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn't useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren't calloused assholes).
with minimal downsides
To me your view seems woefully ignorant, possibly even delusional:
https://northeastwildlife.org/why-do-zoo-animals-pace-back-and-forth/
Yes I'm well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There's more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.
they can be mitigated
But not eliminated.
You and I have different moral systems and you think that hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind, when I'm perfectly okay with causing a small harm in order to secure a much much greater good.
hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind
I don't understand this part of your sentence.
You keep bringing up that zoos cause harm. This seems to be a deal-breaker for you. It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after. In my view, it's acceptable to cause a small amount of harm, if you get significantly greater good from doing so. Of course the details matter, and I don't believe either of us would argue our position in every scenario, but in this case I find the manageable harm caused by zoos to be worth the increased interest in wildlife conservation.
i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless
I love when people like you suddenly come up with a hot take that absolutely no one has ever thought through ever in the past hundreds of years.