| Author |
Topic:
Okay... The Zoo
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/23/07 11:24am
Subject:
Okay... The Zoo
|
This adventure of a psyched gorilla sparked a debate over here in the Netherlands the past coupla days: are zoos okay?
Pros:
a. It's educational.
b. It's fun! For the whole family! Man is king of the jungle and has his natural treasures on display. Where's the harm in that?
Cons:
a. Aw, those poor little animals!
b. That's no way to raise a child - have them gawk at locked up animals and think it's OK. A new bond between man and nature must be formed.
How do people feel about this?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
5/23/07 11:32am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
every zoo is different
overall I think Zoo's are okay!
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/23/07 3:38pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
superwatto
are zoos okay?
It depends. The classic zoos where the animals are in sanitized, stale rooms with bars are not cool. Not only are they inhumane to animals, but they don't put the animals into anything approaching their true habitat, thus limiting the educational experience.
But alot of the newer or remade zoos can be a huge educational benefit for people young and old. It also helps expose people who otherwise might never have a chance to see these animals gain a greater understanding of their current plight.
Some animals rely on zoos, or something approaching it, for their very survival.
Overall, the newer zoos are a big plus. The old zoos though, they need to change.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/23/07 7:10pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
|
Well, many of the animals in zoos are endangered or nearly extinct in the wild. Zoos should be a reflection of our environments if the animal is pretty much gone in the wild, why keep the species going in zoos? Its natural selection.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Erk
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 2:34am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
|
Due to human invetivness we now rule over the natural selection. We chose which animals to keep and which to exterminate. We like tigers because they look kinda fun so we keep them in our zoos to make our children like em too, so that they will not make the mistake of exterminating such a fun big cat.
-----signature-----
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place." Mick Travis, If.... Blast. They've removed my icon.  U S A ! U S A ! U S A !
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 11:32am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Well, many of the animals in zoos are endangered or nearly extinct in the wild. Zoos should be a reflection of our environments if the animal is pretty much gone in the wild, why keep the species going in zoos? Its natural selection.
Yes, but somtimes zoos help reverse the process. They sometimes help revive a species on the brink(white bengal tiger)and can help with habitat education/conservation, and repopulation.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/24/07 12:53pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Well, many of the animals in zoos are endangered or nearly extinct in the wild. Zoos should be a reflection of our environments if the animal is pretty much gone in the wild, why keep the species going in zoos? Its natural selection.
Are you kidding me?
In the first place, zoos are not a reflection of the environment--they are deliberately exotic, and composed mostly of foreign animals. What you are talking about is a wildlife preserve, which is basically undeveloped land that is deliberately left as such so that local flora and fauna can have a place to flourish. So I would think that takes the legs out from under your argument.
In the second, though, I think it's profoundly misleading to talking about how "it's natural selection." In the strictest sense of the word, it is. However, the environmental change that most of these animals proved unable to adapt to was not natural. It was a direct result of human land development. Even this, though, isn't so hypocritical. What flies in the face of all logic is that, apparently, it's okay to be involved in the destruction of the animals, but it's inappropriate to "interfere with natural selection" by keeping the ones alive that wouldn't have died if we hadn't interfered in the first place. How does that work?
-----signature-----
ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings.
All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama
Roma vincit
Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/25/07 1:20am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
ShaneP posted:
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Well, many of the animals in zoos are endangered or nearly extinct in the wild. Zoos should be a reflection of our environments if the animal is pretty much gone in the wild, why keep the species going in zoos? Its natural selection.
Yes, but somtimes zoos help reverse the process. They sometimes help revive a species on the brink(white bengal tiger)and can help with habitat education/conservation, and repopulation.
Exactly, why should we be deciding that, say, the bengal tiger should be preserved? We can't try to fix the environment to its current status as though it can't change. Perhaps especially as the leaps in evolution occur not when things stay the same, but when the dominant group is removed, allowing lower groups the chance to move up. Example being mammals and the extinction of the dinosaurs.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/25/07 1:50am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
|
Lowbacca, imagine I murder most of your family, and ShaneP says: why should Lowbacca be preserved?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/25/07 11:31am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
SuperWatto posted:
Lowbacca, imagine I murder most of your family, and ShaneP says: why should Lowbacca be preserved?
First of all, we're not talking Carrier Pigeon scenario with most animals, its the effects on the environment rather than simply killing them all. Second, there is a difference between actively seeking out and destroying the remaining members of a species and simply not trying to force it into survival.
So with the question from that analogy, I'd agree that I shouldn't be 'preserved'. I'm not a fan of most social welfare anyway.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
5/25/07 1:34pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
So because we go in and rape the natural habitate of animals, we have no responsibility to perserve them because it is "nature taking its course?" That is quite possibly one of the most obsurd things I have ever heard.
You don't unplug a refrigerator and blame the milk for going bad.
That makes less sense than killing all the humans so all the other animals can survive. So when I create my supervirus, I don't want to hear any complaints from you when I don't put any humans in cages.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
5/27/07 9:10pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
I don't care about any animal species except the humpback whales. We'll need them in a few hundred years.
Well, unless someone attempts a time warp and brings back a few from our time. 
But seriously, here's some food for thought:
First, you have evolution, survival of the fittest. The species who are fit to continue go on while the others die out.
Then you introduce OUR species. We seem to have the capacity to survive and, by doing so, lead many, many other species to their extinction. Unlike perhaps any other species, we have the ability to engineer our world so that our species can survive without the surrounding species in our previously necessary ecosystem. But our species has another, equally unique ability: we can also engineer the world to PROMOTE the survival of species that would otherwise be wiped out by our existence.
The question then becomes, how much of what we do is to be considered "natural" in the evolutionary system? For a balance-minded individual, the obvious answer is "Just try to preserve the species that wouldn't be dying if humans weren't interfering." But that fails to consider that humans are as much a part of the natural order of evolution as any other species.
I think that it really comes down to is a personal choice: Where in the spectrum ranging from "Humans are made to dominate this planet and anything that gets in our way is out of luck" and "Humans should use every power at our disposal to preserve every species and life form possible" do I think human nature really lies?
Our feelings on the matter (including our will to become educated about our stances) are part of OUR nature, and eventually, one mindset will win out over another. And perhaps it will be this mindset that nature, through us, will deem fittest for survival.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/28/07 4:46am
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
Funny that nobody spoke of compassion, yet.
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Dark_Faith
Registered:
Jan '04
|
Date Posted:
5/28/07 12:16pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
- Date Edited:
5/28/07 12:17pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Dark_Faith
|
Want to see a human zoo? Visit a jail.
I think humans get a sexual charge out of locking things up. It makes us feel safer to google and ooh at things from behind a bar, where they can't hurt us. How exciting!
The people who are in jail are in jail for doing exactly what we were bred to do in the jungle. Survive, kill and dominate. We are afraid of who we are, and what we really are.
We're all animals, and out for survival. The only thing that makes us different is the empathy of the female.
Thank heavens for little girls.
-----signature-----
30 years of Star Wars and 30 years more
The Force is Forever
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/28/07 10:37pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
|
Well, on the same note, then, Espaldapalabras, would you also oppose to things like, say, the elimination of smallpox and the attempted elimination of polio? Its all about doing what is the best for humanity. I'm not saying kill out animals for kicks, but why should our interests be those of other species than our own? That just is unnatural... we're hardwired to promote the future of the species.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/28/07 11:02pm
Subject:
RE: Okay... The Zoo
|
Alright Lowbacca, well consider this argument. Let's accept your framework. What about benefits that are non-material, but aesthetic? We've strongly favored the evolution/survival of roses and other flowers because they look and smell pretty to us. We favor grasses like Kentucky blue grass because we like the way it looks on our lawn. We've bred all sorts of dogs and cats that would never survive in the wild just because we like having them as pets.
Can't we consider wildlife preservation as the same sort of thing? We keep lions and tigers from extinction because they look cool to us, and they've always been awe inspiring. The profits of "Dancing with Penguins" suggest we're pretty enamored with them too, and would probably like keeping them around. Et cetera
Basically, how come we can't count aesthetic/artistic benefits of the animals to? Doesn't "keep it cause I like it (it's existence gives me pleasure)" an acceptable reason within your framework.
-----signature-----
ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings.
All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama
Roma vincit
Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
