the zoo Options

[capsule]

Those who know where I got this topic from...hush

So...what is your opinion on the zoo? Now...think about it for a sec. Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents? Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like? Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information? By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive. And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also. Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

[ComradeRed]

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

Yes.

Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like?

www.freestarmedia.com --> Scroll down and check out the Social Security Monkey. You've never seen a monkey, until you've seen the Social Security Monkey.

Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Yes.

Why?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking. The information isn't always correct. A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited. The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Yes; great idea. To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals! Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages. What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

Books. Television. Media. Movies. Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France. You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

[ComradeRed]

Why?

Why not?

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia.  On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking.  The information isn't always correct.  A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited.  The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it.  Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes; great idea.  To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals!  Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages.  What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them. 

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Books.  Television.  Media.  Movies.  Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France.  You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

[ApocalypseAelis]

Why not?

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water. Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat. It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes, editors are people too. People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences. Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts. Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

Yet another brilliant idea. To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild. We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting. Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway. Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural. If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

||edit||

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary. I'm using it as an example.

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young. Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild? You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

I agree with you on this one. You're right. Like I said before, I support zoos as long as the quality is acceptable.

[ComradeRed]

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water.  Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat.  It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.

Yes, editors are people too.  People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences.

Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.

Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts.  Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.

Yet another brilliant idea.  To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild.  We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting.

When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.

Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway.  Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural.  If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary.  I'm using it as an example.
Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young.

Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?

Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.

Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild?  You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.

Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US. Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?

Our laws and institutions aren't perfect.

It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.

Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people. Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.

Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.

What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.

Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.

When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.

As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.

A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours. We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.

Loss of biodiversity, climate disruption, soil erosion, flooding, a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.

If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS," consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest. Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute. Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes. Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.

When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.

I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.

Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!

I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.

Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?
Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.

People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.

A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway.

Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.

I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[ComradeRed]

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US.[/quote]

Nope; it was only legal in six of the original thirteen (Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware). It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that slavery became "legal" in every state, but even then, states found ways of getting around it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?[/quote]

African-Americans are members of our species. Notice people say human rights. If a dog bites you, should the dog be held accountable the way a person would and be put through the same legal process? No, because it's not a member of the same species. Race is scientifically invalid; species is not.

Until animals start paying taxes and upholding the laws, they should not have rights.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people.[/quote]

What about sadists? It's possible to rob banks or kill families, but, while most people don't because they're humane, the law is also there to check the remaining people.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.[/quote]

Taking away the right of people to have zoos might be considered inhumane, too. In fact, I say any restriction on voluntary individual acts that doesn't adversely affect other people is inhumane. So to 'humanely' treat animals, your proposed course of action would be 'inhumane' to people. And notice the root of the word humane.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.
A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours.[/quote]

A mature Tokyo oxygen bar does that too, only the oxygen it lets out is fresher and provides for a lot more than 30 adult humans.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.[/quote]

21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, and there are far more plants than humans. We are far from the point of environmental disaster.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.[/quote]

Every species competes with every other species over the resources they need. It's not inhumane; it's a biological fact. Nothing in the natural world 'deserves' to live; it only lives if its genes are good enough to. That's why people exist in the first place. The rules of 'civil' society were created because people realized everyone was better off from not killing/enslaving/robbing each other. But cutting down trees? No.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Loss of biodiversity,[/quote]

For every creature we find that cures cancer; we'll find a hundred that cause it.

Medical science is mostly the story of manmade chemicals triumphing over natural diseases, not vice versa.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]climate disruption,[/quote]

...which can't be blamed on human activity, seeing as whale flatulence lets off more CO2 than all human industry in the world combined.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]soil erosion,[/quote]

Could this be attributed to overfarming because people are living in poverty, because in third world countries, they aren't utilizing the environment enough? I think it could.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]flooding,[/quote]

Which isn't nearly as devastating as it used to be. Ever since Holland started putting up dykes in the 17th century, flooding has ceased to become a threat in the western world. The Allegheny flooded last year. I think a cat might've drowned. Maybe.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.[/quote]

The atmosphere's a big place, created over almost five billion years. The chemical makeup of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 100 years. It's the same mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements that it's always been.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS,"[/quote]

No, the definition of selfish is what has it done for me.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest.[/quote]

So do 50% of the diseases that those medicines are supposed to cure. Smallpox and malaria, two of the biggest killers of humans in history, both originated from rainforest environments. Much of Africa is totally unusable because of the Tsetse flies that lurk in the jungles.

We have to look at both sides of everything. I can say that Stalin tripled agricultural production in the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean he was a good person.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute.[/quote]

So do HEPA filters. My street is full of trees, but it was the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that significantly improved air quality in my house.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes.[/quote]

Do you know how many new trees are grown in a year? Trees are a veryrenewable resource. That's whay paper, chairs, doors, etc., don't cost any more than they used to. On the other hand, if you look at a short-term nonrenewable resource like oil, the price of that is skyrocketing as the supply dwindles.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.[/quote]

And who cut down those trees to build chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books, homes, tourist traps, etc. Funny how people are alike.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.[/quote]

That's not going to happen. The best way of gauging resource depletion is to see the prices you pay. If oil suddenly goes to $4/gallon, we can assume that the world's oil supply is running short. If the price of iron ore goes up, we can assume that there's less iron ore, etc. If the price of ivory is going up, we can assume that we're shooting too many elephants.

The price of wood products is not growing any faster than general inflation. There is no 'critical' deforestation. If anything, the price of paper is going down relative to other goods, because of how fast trees reproduce.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.
I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.
People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.[/quote]

Neither are really 'sins'. If you gamble or drink so much that you lose contorl of yourself and start hurting others, then it can become sinful, but friends playing a game of Texas Hold 'Em over beers are hardly sinners.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway. [/quote]

Survival skills that largely consist of killing other things.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[/quote]

But poaching and hunting are so fun!