|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should we ban the keeping of animals in zoos? |
|
|
| |
Author:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom )
Dr. Thomas Dixon is research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. |
Created: Wednesday, June 28, 2000
Last Modified: Monday, April 06, 2009
|
| |
The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details. |
 |
|
|
| Animals belong in their natural habitat in the wild. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them by force into captivity for our own purposes. |
|
Animals do not have rights. In any case, zoos, as we will see below, exist to protect endangered species and to help us understand and protect our animal cousins more successfully. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they stay in their natural habitat (see point 4). |
 |
|
|
| Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries. |
|
There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down. |
|
|
|
| Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life; thus zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem. |
|
Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness. |
|
|
|
| There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo. |
|
One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves. |
|
|
|
| As above, research into animals (when it respects their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment. Also, the only way really to understand other species is to study them in their natural habitat and see how they interact socially and with other species of flora and fauna. |
|
As above we should take a 'both-and' approach rather than an 'either-or' approach. Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. Both sorts of study are valuable and, as in point 4, there is no reason why this should not be done in the context of a cruelty-free zoo as well as in other contexts. |
|
|
|
| | This House Would Not go to the Zoo
This House Condemns Zoos
This House Believes that Animals Belong in their Natural Habitat
This House Believes that Animals are 'Born Free' and Should Stay That Way
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
laser290
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 02:26 pm |
|
it helps in my middle school debate
|
Cerceus
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
I couldnt agree more with falcon 21.
The basis of animal collections starts very long ago, with pidgeons and birds in general as early as 4500 BC in what is now iraq (probably babilon)
We all know that in order for the miserable public to get something nice ( that can be said about zoos, generally) then thats because it was already very popular amongst rich individuals.
nothing against them, but in order to get to the roots of animal collections, we must follow the money... :)
A lavish style of life, such as the one held by egyptian royalty, greek high society or roman patricians would certainly include a place for exoctic animals. of course, things from our own countries are boring and cheap - u people see were i am getting at...
We all are fascinated by exoctic, foreign and rare stuff (you rarely would go to your own country on holidays, if you had enough money to decide) and it all applies to every aspect of rich people, pets included.
So maybe the zoological gardens in london were not exaclty started for educational/enriching purposes, but for the pleasure of the high society ( most of them are founded by private institutions) and for the benefit of their own lazy attitude towards life. Ok, probably most modern zoos are genuinelly dedicated to the studying of animals - BUT thats not how and why it started anyway in the first place.
We should not rely on the treatment of the majority of them, its just like us: if you are lucky enough to get in the first class rows of life then its all fine and dandy, except for the other 98 percent...
Sorry to keep you from sleeping well at night, wichever generalised reader which think that "zoos are good/medium for most of the world" may be, but its a bit like primary state school : the teacher reasures the parent that their child will be taken care of, whlie most of them dont care if they get hurt, sick depreesed or poo themselfs. They might worry more about their cigarette break....
Same with zoos. There must be a very small amount from all the keepers which are genuinelly interested. But as places need to get filled, any idiot is welcome, since theyre animals - we dont care that much or actually get penailsed if they die at our hands.
We city people are like spoiled children, we have a lot of toys, and dont acutally value them or care of one of them gets broken. Same with zoos. We get it all in a silver plate, when actually we are getting the crapiest quality of what we are looking for. its like a chinese pirate copy - worthless.
This leads to harry and milo's fantastic comment. The best way to actually enjoy something as wildlife is to actually see it in the wild. Nothing can match it. Its not sithetic.
So yes, zoos are precarious little institutions in the sense that an animal must be upset and brought over ( whilst many others die in such a painfull process) which skew our view about natural and non natural. Its actually so old we cant notice, and therefore dont mind it.
Its a crappy excuse for scientists as well. Surely nature would preserve actually VALID (as soon as the creature is moved ALL possible parameters that they would investigate would be affected and hitherto adulterated by the environment created to keep such creature), reliable and the actual parameters that scientists would want to observe.
We might say it doesnt, but ultimately it will fuel the business of animal trade (including the illegal kind) sicne there will always be a constant demand for animals.
And if we say that we are protecting them by caging them away from the thrashed environment that we are making then we are getting another barrier out of the way for actually caring less about the environment - since we actually dont have any non profitable reasons to keep it.
"In looking ahead, some experts warn against placing too much reliance on zoos as biological 'arks,' where species can be protected regardless of environmental changes outside. Critics warn that zoos, like all human institutions, are vulnerable to unforeseen events, such as disease, fires, and financial or social upheaval. More significantly, the number of species that zoos can protect is strictly limited. Today's zoos are home to no more than a few thousand species—only a fraction of the world's animal life. Zoos already have to perform a delicate balancing act between large, crowd-attracting animals and threatened animals that have less visitor appeal. During the 21st century, zoo experts will face even harder decisions about which species they can afford to save.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"
|
corrie97
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 05:08 pm |
|
This has been a debate that has been going on for many, many years.
Animals should be kept in zoos because there is instant medication and food for them so they eat at specific times.
Animals shouldn't be kept in zoos though because they're natural habitat would be to fend for there own food and if they were to be released into the wild then they would not know where to start and would definitely not survive.
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
