JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
6/1/2016 12:19:44 PM
53

Gorilla incident more proof of why zoos shouldn't be a thing in the first place

I agree completely

48

I agree for the most part

57

I mostly disagree

67

I completely disagree

277

So for those of you who may not have heard, a kid recently fell into a gorilla pit. The gorilla dragged the boy across the little river they had in there. In the end, the gorilla, named Harambe, was killed to ensure the little boy's safety. Now people are outraged. People say that the little boy should have been left to die and the gorilla should have kept its life. Or they that tranquilizers should have been used when they fail to realize that tranquilizers would have taken about 15 minutes to take affect and all they would do is scare the silverback, most likely leading to a 3 year old in 3 different parts. Killing the gorilla was the ONLY way to ENSURE the child's life. Now this incident and others are proof of why zoos are inherently bad. Idiots will be idiots and animals will be animals. Cases like this where bad parenting, being dumb, or even a zookeeper who interacts with the wild animals often ends up with either the animal dead (almost always), or a human being dieing. Animals are being punished for being animals, when in the first place they should be out being animals in the wild. We bring them into zoos for entertainment of the people when that has negative affects outside of this for the animals. In the end, zoos shouldn't be a thing in the first place because they lead to animal deaths that, like the gorilla incident in Cincinnati, are necessary to protect human lives. AND BEFORE SOMEONE BRINGS UP THE 7 BILLION PEOPLE TO (enter endangered species population here), imagine this: Your daughter/son has fallen into a pit with a Silverback gorilla that could quite literally tear the manliest man in the world. Or since most of you are likely 12, imagine yourself, or your mother, or your little sister in there. Would you really take the chance of the gorilla killing whoever is in there just because the gorilla in captivity is endangered? Stop giving money to zoos who make these lose-lose scenarios possible. Let animals be animals without being punished for it. TL;DR [spoiler]There isn't one because if you can't make 2-3 minutes to read this I don't want your opinion on the matter [/spoiler]

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • [spoiler]“Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are “happy” because they are “free”. These people usually have a large, handsome predator in mind…The life of the wild animal is simple, noble and meaningful, they imagine. Then it is captured by wicked men and thrown into tiny jails. Its “happiness” is dashed. It yearns mightily for “freedom” and does all it can to escape. Being denied its “freedom” for too long, the animal becomes a shadow of itself, its spirit broken. So some people imagine. This is not the way it is. Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food is low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured…The smallest changes can upset them. They want things to be just so, day after day, month after month. Surprises are highly disagreeable to them…In the wild, animals stick to the same paths for the same pressing reasons, season after season. In a zoo, if an animal is not in its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means something…a reason to inspect the dung, to cross-examine the keeper, to summon the vet. All this because a stork is not standing where it usually stands! But let me pursue for a moment only one aspect of the question. If you went to a home, kicked down the front door, chased the people who lived there out into the street and said, “Go! You are free! Free as a bird! Go! Go!”-do you think they would shout and dance for joy? They wouldn’t. Birds are not free. The people you’ve just evicted would sputter, “With what right do you throw us out? This is our home. We own it. We have lived here for years. We’re calling the police, you scoundrel.” …Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. A biologically sound zoo enclosure-whether cage, pit, moated island, corral, terrarium, aviary or aquarium- is just another territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human territory…Territories in the wild are large not as a matter of taste but of necessity. In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out. Whereas before for us the cave was here, the river over there, the hunting grounds a mile that way, the lookout next to it, the berries somewhere else- all of them infested with lions, snakes, ants, leeches and poison ivy- now the river flows through taps at hand’s reach and we can wash next to where we sleep, we can eat where we have cooked, and we can surround the whole with a protective wall and keep it clean and warm. A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal…Finding within it all places it needs- a lookout, a place for resting, for eating and drinking, for bathing, for grooming, etc.- and finding that there is no need to go hunting, food preparing six days a week…an animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would lay claim to a new space in the wild, exploring it and marking it out in the normal ways of its species, with sprays of urine perhaps. Once this moving-in ritual is done and the animal has settled, it will not feel like a nervous tenant, and even less like a prisoner, but rather like a landholder…defending tooth and nail should it be invaded. Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animals needs, a territory, natural or constructed…One might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it would opt for living in a zoo, since the major differences between a zoo and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the second. Think about it yourself. Would you rather be put up at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?...Within the limits of their nature, they[animals] make do with what they have. But I don’t insist. I don’t mean to defend zoos. Close them all down if you want (and let us hope that what wildlife remains can survive in what is left of the natural world). I know zoos are no longer in people’s good graces. Religion faces the same problem. Certain illusions about freedom plague them both.”[/spoiler] From Life of Pi

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    13 Replies
    You are not allowed to view this content.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon