• @wahming
    link
    English
    831 month ago

    Generating awareness and sympathy is probably the biggest factor in keeping many endangered species alive

    • To add to this, A lot of gorillas that are saved from unsafe/illegal conditions cannot go back into the wild. Places like The Rotterdam zoo provides a lot of enrichment for these animals that you won’t see at say, Joe’s roadside animal park.

      • @rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 month ago

        Why not save animals from unsafe/illegal conditions and provide enrichment, without turning the animals into an attraction?

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          161 month ago

          Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.

          • @rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -61 month ago

            Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.

            But they aren’t necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.

            • Liz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              81 month ago

              Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.

            • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              31 month ago

              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.

        • @wahming
          link
          English
          71 month ago

          Because people wouldn’t support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.

    • 🦄🦄🦄
      link
      fedilink
      -161 month ago

      Another lie of capitalism. Species don’t have inherent value, individuals of a species do. Which is why bad treatment of those individuals can’t be justified by appealing to the species’ survival. It’s about money, like everywhere else.

      • @wahming
        link
        English
        111 month ago

        … What. I don’t even know where to start with that. Ecological conservation is about money?

          • @GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            12
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world? Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.

            Crappy “documentaries” ain’t it by the way. Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild. Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.

            • 🦄🦄🦄
              link
              fedilink
              -21 month ago

              Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?

              They shouldn’t.

              Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.

              Where is the evidence for that?

              Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild.

              This doesn’t require the animals to be put on display.

              Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.

              Or we could stop destroying the natural habitats of those animals instead of making a profit with the remaining individuals.

              • @GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                4
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Do you need evidence that most people have a hard time being invested in something entirely abstract which they will never interact with for their whole life? Something they only ever saw in school books? Which is what animals would be for a massive part of the population.

                Kids nowadays at best interact with pets, they know the horses are what people rode in those old western movies and cows are what makes the milk in the carton from the grocery store. Chicken grows in nugget form.

                And these are all domesticated animals, not at all exotic in most places around the world. How would they ever come into contact with all the other fascinating creatures we share our planet with? Develop a passion for their protection?

            • @rah@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -51 month ago

              Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?

              By going to their habitats?

              obviously critical in making people care about protecting it

              No. Zoos are not critical in making people care about protecting wildlife.

              • @GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                71 month ago

                Taking tourists into natural habitats is way more destructive than having a few specimens on display in artificial habitats.

                • @rah@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  30 days ago

                  I’m not talking about tourists viewing exotic animals from far off places, I’m talking about people going into the countryside that’s near to them and seeing the wildlife there.

          • @wahming
            link
            English
            21 month ago

            Zoos are about money, yes. That’s not the point under discussion. I’m taking issue with the line ‘species don’t have inherent value’. You’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct as long as its done humanely.

            • 🦄🦄🦄
              link
              fedilink
              -21 month ago

              ou’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct

              You should read my comment again. This is not what I am saying.

              • @wahming
                link
                English
                11 month ago

                That’s certainly how it comes across when you claim species don’t have inherent value. Why would we bother to preserve and protect something that’s valueless? You may have meant something else, but judging by the downvotes nobody else is getting your intended meaning either.

                • 🦄🦄🦄
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -11 month ago

                  I can’t control what people want to interpret into what I write 🤷