Today's longread delves into a number of important ethical and practical questions about zoos and keeping animals in captivity. Based around the story of Knut, a polar bear in Germany, this article examines the competing viewpoints about whether zoos advance or hinder the goal of creating a more harmonious relationship between humans and our environment. While I would love to share the optimism of proponents of zoos -- and to some extent I do because I think there are people who are truly inspired by zoos -- on the whole, I think they may be flawed in ways that do more harm than good.
"Who Killed Knut?" by Stephen Cave
Published in Aeon Magazine, November 13, 2012
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/stephen-cave-zoos-conservation/
Eric
Is either answer really viable? The fact of the matter is, as is pointed out in the end, we are the flood. Whether or not there are a number of animals in captivity as time continues to pass humans are directly responsible for an untold number of extinctions and near extinctions. Does having zoos bring a level of awareness and research that wouldn't be around otherwise? Yes. Does having zoos prevent others from understanding that we can't engineer nature and "preserve" species through human action? Yes. I don't think the focus should be on zoo: yes or no. Zoo's aren't going anywhere. The focus should be on how to simultaneously improve the conditions of captive animals while trying to make people understand the impact of humans on nature. That being said I think it's pretty clear trying to get a vast segment of humanity ot understand and want to act on our impact on nature is probably impossible.
ReplyDelete