Zookeeper Gabe’s Animal Thread Vol 9.0

[The_Renaissance]

This is the last I will respond to you, it was very clear you didn’t want to learn anything from your posts. You claim I was being evasive and arrogant when you didn’t respond to a single thing I said. I brought up multiple things that modern zoos do and you completely ignored them.
In a typical ideologue fashion you responded with emotional arguments and attempted to make me out to be the bad guy. If you had wanted to have any sort of honest discussion I was open, but you seemed more interested in deflecting and not actually responding to any points. It’s actually quite sad that I knew how this would turn out, yet I was still willing to engage you. Be willing to open your mind and listen, especially when dealing with someone that has extensive knowledge and experience in an issue.

Stop replying to him - he's one of THE weirdest posters on this entire forum. He's fucking weird.

 

[ferrisjso]

your positron as a zookeeper does not give you an automatic compassion that transcends all other peoples perspectives and love of animals....... in fact a statement like that reveals arrogance on your part. you have been evasive and you made your mind up about where we were coming from very quickly. its ok. people disagree. you have been pretty unable to hear where we have been coming from and you have been evasive. none the information you have given has pointed in a positive direction for us.

its ok. you are the wrong person for us have a sincere conversation with and that's fine. people disagree. we can agree to disagree.

Many non zookeepers agree with Gabe myself included. A lot of people think "they should be in the wild" you can see dozens of them on any animal related youtube comment section. And a lot of people find the "they should be in the wild" people really irratating cause it does a lot of harm. So there's history there it's not at all irational for Gabe to assume where you were coming from because he's probably had this talk hundreds of times. In many of the aformentioned video the animal people trip over themselves trying to justify the animal not being in the wild because they expect said dozens of comments.

Animals in the zoo aren't pets but they aren't wild animals. They are born in a controlled environment surronded by people and other animals with the same experience. Putting them in the wild would kill them and that's a lot of peoples core issue with the animal ethics movement it's based on the idea animals are better off dead than "exploited" or in "cages" or being used for any human mission. This is why for example people hate PETA. Santctuary animals are something in between they have a lot in common with both wild and zoo animals.

Wild animal is as much a social construct as a pet or human is. While there's all sorts of logical and logistical reasons why some animals are domesticated and others are not it is a social construct. Animals don't "belong" anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I would postulate based on human life that animals hate living in the wild. Humans are animals and we prefer shelter and safety and easy access to food. Why would another creature be different? Zoos are set up aesthetically to look like something these animals will accept, the same is true of apartment complexes.

Is it better to be constantly be hunted, never knowing where your next meal is coming from, with humans (other animals) always encroaching? Everywhere there is a natural habitat, human beings show up to build there, and kill/eat every animal they can find. Even when the government sets up regulations etc, people just ignore them.

If we had modern style Zoos back when the Barbary lion or Dodo bird was around, those species might still exist today.

Zoos act as key tools of preservation in the presence of cruel human expansion. Without them I have no doubt many more animals would be extinct from poaching or encroachment.

this is a good faith reply and is worthy of addressing as such. its the best rely by far i have received to any of my inquiries on this topic. its miles better than anything @Zookeeper Gabe has been generous enough to offer. i appreciate the lack of slander about my motives and a good faith discussion. this is the fist time i have had the option of responding in kind.


there is a point at which I would agree with this statement actually. this is the position I use when speaking to my daughter about the possibility, not necessarily the reality of zoo's being a "good" rather than something that is exploitative. i am always looking for a way, if not to change her mind, at leaste to soften her perspective. I don't think that most zoo's rise to the level we are speaking of for all the animals that live in them though... and I don't think this motivation, that I could easily support, actually sits at the center of the motivation for most zoo's in practice. i know it doesn't actually because they began as profoundly exploitative endeavors and have only slowly conceded to pressures, often from the outside, for more humane existences for the animals.

but in principle I can get behind this but only if our actual motivation was to make the animal lives better, from their perspective, than they would be living in the wild. even the best zoo's would likely have much to change to meet a genuine standard i think and i dont see where they would get the funding to make this truly viable. i sometimes wonder if this would be possible though while keeping their enclosures such that they are easily accessible to human eyes. it seems unlikely to me for many of the animals.

but there is another problem with your argument that doesn't sit well with me when I think about this, which I have often enough over the years...... you can't reason with many of these animals.... they have some instinctual drives and some emotional drives that they cannot understand and reason about and weigh against the benefits of shelter and food and so i think it is a convenient assumption based on anthropomorphism done in a selfish way to justify our own actions that causes us to come to this conclusion.

seeing as how its so hard to tell with animals..... a compassionate stance would err on the side of caution and assuming they are NOT fulfilled and would NOT make the bargain unless every effort and study and measure were taken to prove this out. but what we have is the reverse instead. first we create zoos and then we argue backwards for their good all the while exploiting the animals but improving all the time often due to being forced and shamed into it.

this is selfish.


there is a spiritual element and dimension i would not mind addressing at some point in this conversation also.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Many non zookeepers agree with Gabe myself included. A lot of people think "they should be in the wild" you can see dozens of them on any animal related youtube comment section. And a lot of people find the "they should be in the wild" people really irratating cause it does a lot of harm. So there's history there it's not at all irational for Gabe to assume where you were coming from because he's probably had this talk hundreds of times. In many of the aformentioned video the animal people trip over themselves trying to justify the animal not being in the wild because they expect said dozens of comments.

Animals in the zoo aren't pets but they aren't wild animals. They are born in a controlled environment surronded by people and other animals with the same experience. Putting them in the wild would kill them and that's a lot of peoples core issue with the animal ethics movement it's based on the idea animals are better off dead than "exploited" or in "cages" or being used for any human mission. This is why for example people hate PETA. Santctuary animals are something in between they have a lot in common with both wild and zoo animals.

Wild animal is as much a social construct as a pet or human is. While there's all sorts of logical and logistical reasons why some animals are domesticated and others are not it is a social construct. Animals don't "belong" anywhere.

saying some people agree with is not an argument so i wont address that.

gabe was wrong about my starting point and played an underhanded game of straw-manning and discrediting me to AVOID having a discussion about the actual points. i just replied to a good faith response, the first one ive received, and that should be all it takes to prove to anyone that this is the case.

the only reason animals are born in captivity is because they are bred into captivity. you cant use the argument that an animal was born in captivity as the starting point as the position im questioning is weather or not they should even be bred in captivity and placed in present day zoo's.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

this is a good faith reply and is worthy of addressing as such. its the best rely by far i have relieved to any of my inquiries on this topic. its miles better than anything @Zookeeper Gabe has been generous enough to offer. i appreciate the lack of slander about my motives and a good faith discussion. this is the fist time i has the option of responding in kind.


there is a point at which I would agree with this statement actually. this is the position I use when speaking to my daughter about the possibility, not the necessarily the reality, zoo's being a "good" rather than something that is exploitative. i am always looking for a way, if not to change here mind, at leaste to soften her prescriptive. I don't think that most zoo's rise to the level we are speaking of for all the animals that live in them though... and I don't think this motivation, that I could easily support sits at the center of the motivation for most zoo's in practice. i know it doesn't actually because they began as profoundly exploitative endeavors and have only slowly conceded to pressures, often from the outside, for more humane existences for the animals.

but in principle I can get behind this but only if our actual motivation was to make the animal lives better, from their perspective, than they would be living in the wild. even the best zoo's would likely have much to change to meet a genuine standard i think and i dont see where they would get the funding. i sometimes wonder if this would be possible though while keeping their enclosures such that they are easily accessible to human eyes.

but there is another problem with your argument that doesn't sit well with me when I think about this, which I have often enough over the years...... you can't reason with many of these animals.... they have some instinctual drives and some emotional drives that they cannot understand and reason about and weigh against the benefits of shelter and food and so i think it is a convenient assumption based on anthropomorphism done in a selfish way to justify our own actions that causes us to come to this conclusion.

seeing as how its so hard to tell with animals a compassionate stance would err on the side of caution and assuming they are NOT fulfilled and would NOT make the bargain unless every effort and study and measure were taken to prove this out. but what we have is the reverse instead. first we create zoos and then we argue backwards for their good all the while exploiting the animals but improving all the time.

this is selfish.


there is a spiritual element and dimension i would not mind addressing at some point in this conversation also.

Alright, well, if you're talking about having a pure altruistic motive for zoos vs a profit motive then we have to parce this into two separate conversations, one historical (Zoos have their own history and place in culture. The history of zoos profile serious changes in attitude and behavior reflective of changes in the culture at large) and one ideological (Capitalism vs some manner of social altruism).
At present, I would argue there are zero altruistic pursuits being pursed purely altruistically in our current model of civilization. (Zoos in fact would be the lesser in exploitative practice compared to, say, McDonalds. )

As for part 1 - I think the changes in Zoos and social attitudes about animals are pretty obvious. For some fun, pointed examples of cultural changes we could look at Theodore Roosevelts taxidermy vs Bill Clinton's veganism.

For part 2 - Let's take a brief look at the history exploitative practices by humans in general.
Since human beings discovered we could strap a yoke to an Ox and have it till a farm we have been exploiting one another. A hunter-gatherer, state of nature type society might not be considered exploitative, but those kind of societies are subject to annihilation by diseases and so it looks like you might be forced to choose, at root, between a culture founded on some kind of exploitation (of animals and humans) or a hunter-gatherer existence where all that you love exists on a the knife edge of bacterial destruction. It seems humans have chosen to reject a hunter-gatherer lifestyle whenever an alternative is present. Medicine is largely responsible for that.

To zoom to the present: the phone or laptop you're typing on has batteries built from a cobalt mine where workers are exploited for profit. The university departments where veganism is taught are built on land that was once used as grazing ground for animals, built by workers who likely were paid poorly and got injured on the job.

This brings us back to the exploitative nature of zoos - it seems they fall in line, ethically, with most other institutions and activities in our society. Meaning it's all deeply compromised if you're going to use foundational exploitation as a cause for judging something as ethically reprehensible.

Onto animals being "subaltern" - voiceless. I think, for example, videos like these are proof that when the animals welfare is taken care of, they respond with love and affection the highest degree they are capable of showing.

Spoiler

Animals are also capable of showing anger.

Spoiler

And I think their behavior at zoos lets the zookeepers and the people around them know how they feel and how they want to be treated.

According to Stanford biology professor Robert Sapolsky, we are also very genetically similar to chimps. I've attached videos he's done that explore the similarities between chimps and humans. I think these similarities indicate that our intuition about what makes them happy are therefore at least somewhat trustworthy.

Spoiler

Spoiler

So now we get, finally, to the motivation behind zoos and why we have them at all. You argued that even if the animals have some capacity to voice their pleasure or displeasure, the motive for their existence, on our end, or seems to be, profit and exhibition based. So, that's not great. But, then again, you're talking about the foundational structure of our society here. How much of that motive do you hang on Zoos, in and of themselves, vs the society they operate in?

And, when we look at the details of how they tend to operate in our society, the profit they generate comes from humans observing the animals. Not eating them or destroying them in any way. If the zookeeper gabes are treating the animals as kindly as they are capable of, that is much better than most of what we do and have done.

In the Roman coliseum, animals were used for sex shows, were simply killed live in front of people, were forced to fight each other - all for exhibition. In zoos, people who love these animals try to keep them happy and use the fact that they can generate a profit by people coming to see them to keep them alive instead of being eaten or destroyed.

I therefore think it makes sense to to support my G, Zookeeper Gabe, in his vocation.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

I stated I would not be replying to this anymore as you refuse to accept any of the information I have provided. If you want to continue having a discussion with others that is fine, do not tag me again unless you are willing to listen to me and stop playing the victim card.

 

[ferrisjso]

saying some people agree with is not an argument so i wont address that.

gabe was wrong about my starting point and played an underhanded game of straw-manning and discrediting me to AVOID having a discussion about the actual points. i just replied to a good faith response, the first one ive received, and that should be all it takes to prove to anyone that this is the case.

the only reason animals are born in captivity is because they are bred into captivity. you cant use that an animal was born in captivity as the starting point as the position im questioning is weather or not they should even be bred in captivity and placed in present day zoo's.

I disagree with that assessment of events. In the words of cool hand luke "what we have here is a failure to communicate".

In terms of the question if an animal goes extinct in the wild keeping said animal in zoo in sizeable quantities saves the species from extinction and that is a positive outcome. Like gabe said some extinct animals from the past could have been saved with the help of a preservation program. Barbary Lions were put in zoos but they were just interbred with other lions meaning their DNA survives but the species does not. If animals do exist in the zoo why not breed them? If animals are endangered why not put them in zoos? They are also sanctuarys which is closer to the wild than zoos but with human interference. Watch this one guy the Lion whisperer who handles Lions, Hyennas and I think Cheetahs he has this nice sanctuary.

It's a neutral point morally IMO because animals reality is dictated by their life experience. If they've never been in the wild they have no idea they're "wild animals", they think having someone feed them and take care of their every need is the natural order of things. It's not like a person being incarcarated who wants to be somewhere else and knows life out of prison. Raise a bunch of humans in prison from birth unaware of anything else(and make it coed) and they would view prison very differently. If you freed said people from prison as adults they'd be very confused.

Another thing with zoos is zoos were considerably more cruel when they were mostly founded during the Victorian period. While zoos have changed depictions of zoos from that time and from whom were alive at that time are still present in media. They were sort of the circus or a carnival minus the entertainment part. If you study the history of that time they didn't give a fuck about humans feelings(today they at least pretend) much less animals. It was all about getting an exotic animal on display to brag about. Also at the time it was earlier in capitalsim and the focus wasn't on conservation because animals weren't really endangered yet at least not enough of them to make that the zoos main misison. Today with the collapse of ecosystems preserving non wild populations of various species is a far more important mission far more people are focused on.

Let's say rhinos or elephants go extinct in the wild. Because of the zoos the species will continue and future generations will be able to see living rhinos or elephants. That is an incredibly important mission and should far outweight any concerns about "they belong in the wild".

A circus or carnival I see the point of them being exploited and abused. But in zoos animals just exist and live day to day lives in a controlled environment as opposed to a wild one. No one's forcing them to do tricks or do thjngs people are willing to see them just exist. I don't see the issue.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I stated I would not be replying to this anymore as you refuse to accept any of the information I have provided. If you want to continue having a discussion with others that is fine, do not tag me again unless you are willing to listen to me and stop playing the victim card.

lol.

 

[Mack McMarkles]

I disagree with that assessment of events. In the words of cool hand luke "what we have here is a failure to communicate".

In terms of the question if an animal goes extinct in the wild keeping said animal in zoo in sizeable quantities saves the species from extinction and that is a positive outcome. Like gabe said some extinct animals from the past could have been saved with the help of a preservation program. Barbary Lions were put in zoos but they were just interbred with other lions meaning their DNA survives but the species does not. If animals do exist in the zoo why not breed them? If animals are endangered why not put them in zoos? They are also sanctuarys which is closer to the wild than zoos but with human interference. Watch this one guy the Lion whisperer who handles Lions, Hyennas and I think Cheetahs he has this nice sanctuary.

It's a neutral point morally IMO because animals reality is dictated by their life experience. If they've never been in the wild they have no idea they're "wild animals", they think having someone feed them and take care of their every need is the natural order of things. It's not like a person being incarcarated who wants to be somewhere else and knows life out of prison. Raise a bunch of humans in prison from birth unaware of anything else(and make it coed) and they would view prison very differently. If you freed said people from prison as adults they'd be very confused.

Another thing with zoos is zoos were considerably more cruel when they were mostly founded during the Victorian period. While zoos have changed depictions of zoos from that time and from whom were alive at that time are still present in media. They were sort of the circus or a carnival minus the entertainment part. If you study the history of that time they didn't give a fuck about humans feelings(today they at least pretend) much less animals. It was all about getting an exotic animal on display to brag about. Also at the time it was earlier in capitalsim and the focus wasn't on conservation because animals weren't really endangered yet at least not enough of them to make that the zoos main misison. Today with the collapse of ecosystems preserving non wild populations of various species is a far more important mission far more people are focused on.

Let's say rhinos or elephants go extinct in the wild. Because of the zoos the species will continue and future generations will be able to see living rhinos or elephants. That is an incredibly important mission and should far outweight any concerns about "they belong in the wild".

A circus or carnival I see the point of them being exploited and abused. But in zoos animals just exist and live day to day lives in a controlled environment as opposed to a wild one. No one's forcing them to do tricks or do thjngs people are willing to see them just exist. I don't see the issue.

This discussion is like discussing morals around eating meat with an ethical vegan.

While i fully recognize and support an ethical vegan holding the views they do, I won't allow them to lecture me as if their belief system is superior to mine or others who eat meat.

@gremins are you an ethical vegan, by chance?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Alright, well, if you're talking about having a pure altruistic motive for zoos vs a profit motive then we have to parce this into two separate conversations, one historical (Zoos have their own history and place in culture. The history of zoos profile serious changes in attitude and behavior reflective of changes in the culture at large) and one ideological (Capitalism vs some manner of social altruism).
At present, I would argue there are zero altruistic pursuits being pursed purely altruistically in our current model of civilization. (Zoos in fact would be the lesser in exploitative practice compared to, say, McDonalds. )

As for part 1 - I think the changes in Zoos and social attitudes about animals are pretty obvious. For some fun, pointed examples of cultural changes we could look at Theodore Roosevelts taxidermy vs Bill Clinton's veganism.

For part 2 - Let's take a brief look at the history exploitative practices by humans in general.
Since human beings discovered we could strap a yoke to an Ox and have it till a farm we have been exploiting one another. A hunter-gatherer, state of nature type society might not be considered exploitative, but those kind of societies are subject to annihilation by diseases and so it looks like you might be forced to choose, at root, between a culture founded on some kind of exploitation (of animals and humans) or a hunter-gatherer existence where all that you love exists on a the knife edge of bacterial destruction. It seems humans have chosen to reject a hunter-gatherer lifestyle whenever an alternative is present. Medicine is largely responsible for that.

To zoom to the present: the phone or laptop you're typing on has batteries built from a cobalt mine where workers are exploited for profit. The university departments where veganism is taught are built on land that was once used as grazing ground for animals, built by workers who likely were paid poorly and got injured on the job.

This brings us back to the exploitative nature of zoos - it seems they fall in line, ethically, with most other institutions and activities in our society. Meaning it's all deeply compromised if you're going to use foundational exploitation as a cause for judging something as ethically reprehensible.

Onto animals being "subaltern" - voiceless. I think, for example, videos like these are proof that when the animals welfare is taken care of, they respond with love and affection the highest degree they are capable of showing.

Spoiler

Animals are also capable of showing anger.

Spoiler

And I think their behavior at zoos lets the zookeepers and the people around them know how they feel and how they want to be treated.

According to Stanford biology professor Robert Sapolsky, we are also very genetically similar to chimps. I've attached videos he's done that explore the similarities between chimps and humans. I think these similarities indicate that our intuition about what makes them happy are therefore at least somewhat trustworthy.

Spoiler

Spoiler

So now we get, finally, to the motivation behind zoos and why we have them at all. You argued that even if the animals have some capacity to voice their pleasure or displeasure, the motive for their existence, on our end, or seems to be, profit and exhibition based. So, that's not great. But, then again, you're talking about the foundational structure of our society here. How much of that motive do you hang on Zoos, in and of themselves, vs the society they operate in?

And, when we look at the details of how they tend to operate in our society, the profit they generate comes from humans observing the animals. Not eating them or destroying them in any way. If the zookeeper gabes are treating the animals as kindly as they are capable of, that is much better than most of what we do and have done.

In the Roman coliseum, animals were used for sex shows, were simply killed live in front of people, were forced to fight each other - all for exhibition. In zoos, people who love these animals try to keep them happy and use the fact that they can generate a profit by people coming to see them to keep them alive instead of being eaten or destroyed.

I therefore think it makes sense to to support my G, Zookeeper Gabe, in his vocation.

another good faith reply that does not strawman my position or slander me in any way. take note people.

a large part of your argument seems to be that humans exploit people and animals in many other ways so we should not call zoo's into question. i see that point completely. but i disagree. human beings should continue to call out and voice objections to exploitative actions no matter where they show up. you are right that there is exploitation on other levels but we should constantly work to end that exploitation. i dont see the argument that society takes part in exploitation of others as a reason to support exploitation. in fact if anything you seem to have agreed with me that they are somewhat exploitative and admitted to the exploitative nature of zoo's to a limited extent at least. but you feel it is justified given the fact that humanity exploits all things for its own good. i disagree with that stance but you can have it if you like.

i would argue that the damage this exploitation does to US is a good enough reason not to do it let alone the damage it does to animals.

but i think zoo's are not such an important good that the exploitation of these animals is necessary or even a true "good". i realize someone could argue that they serve as ambassadors for the living world but i dont think they really do any good at all on that level and think documentaries do a better job.

you mentioned computers and cell phones and McDonald's. i personally cannot work and live without a cell phone or a computer but am awaiting the day when European options for these items as pricey as they may be are offered in the states that do not partake in any exploitative means to produce them. i will not defend the exploitation of these industries but will point out that presently i must partake in them. as a pathetic level of protest we buy the cheapest lowest profit phones we can. i would vote to end these exploitative practice right now if it were possible.

your McDonald's argument gets a total agreement from me. i dont personally eat any animals of any kind and when i rarely make use of dairy we shop at a store that only harvests from ethically produced dairy farms, organic free range etc and we pay double the price of just organically produced diary for it.. we do this because we think that the exploitation of animals is wrong and unnecessary. but i dont think everyone should follow suit on this. i realize there are health concerns for some people that are genuine and absolutely require taking in animal protein. i am probably one of those people but have made the choice of compassion for the animals over and above my own health but i would never expect others to follow that model especially those who work labor for a living and need the fortitude to do their job.

im not sure your argument about chimps is worth replying to. its based on a lot of assumptions and anthropomorphizing that im not sure is justified but in any case im not advocating for there to be no zoo's here. im saying that when dealing with living beings we should avoid exploitation wherever possible and in all cases have a motive of causing no harm to the animals unless it is deemed totally necessary. zoo's MAY be able to exist under a truly humane model but we are not even close to that model at present.

zoo's do not rise to that level and deserve criticism. in fact they would still be profoundly exploitative and miserable places were it not for people who speak out against them and advocate for the animals who are in them.

and finally i would like to point out that i have not tried to defame your character at all here and am having a good faith discussion with you because YOU have been willing to actually engage in good faith yourself. i respect your posts.

@Mack McMarkles if you can read my posts like these and accuse me of lecturing i think you are arguing in bad faith as gabe is/was.

 

[Mack McMarkles]

@gremins you literally describe yourself as an angel who came in offering nothing but good will and stated that Gabe was solely bad faith. I cannot take you seriously when that is the beginning point for your discussion and how you view yourself and others.

Had you instead said something like 'perhaps I came off wrong, but that was not my intent' instead of 'I WAS PURE... YOU WERE TERRIBLE' you would likely get better engagement.

You still continue to describe your engagement as various forms of angelic. Anyway I am curious if you are vegan, if you care to answer?

 

[Monkadelic]

Man, this thread really took an unexpected turn.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

another good faith reply that does not strawman my position or slander me in any way. take note people.

a large part of your argument seems to be that humans exploit people and animals in many other ways so we should not call zoo's into question. i see that point completely. but i disagree. human beings should continue to call out and voice objections to exploitative actions no matter where they show up. you are right that there is exploitation on other levels but we should constantly work to end that exploitation. i dont see the argument that society takes part in exploitation of others as a reason to support exploitation. in fact if anything you seem to have agreed with me that they are somewhat exploitative and admitted to the exploitative nature of zoo's to a limited extent at least. but you feel it is justified given the fact that humanity exploits all things for its own good. i disagree with that stance but you can have it if you like.

i would argue that the damage this exploitation does to US is a good enough reason not to do it let alone the damage it does to animals.

but i think zoo's are not such an important good that the exploitation of these animals is necessary or even a true "good". i realize someone could argue that they serve as ambassadors for the living world but i dont think they really do any good at all on that level and think documentaries do a better job.

you mentioned computers and cell phones and McDonald's. i personally cannot work and live without a cell phone or a computer but am awaiting the day when European options for these items as pricey as they may be are offered in the states that do not partake in any exploitative means to produce them. i will not defend the exploitation of these industries but will point out that presently i must partake in them. as a pathetic level of protest we buy the cheapest lowest profit phones we can. i would vote to end these exploitative practice right now if it were possible.

your McDonald's argument gets a total agreement from me. i dont personally eat any animals of any kind and when i rarely make use of dairy we shop at a store that only harvests from ethically produced dairy farms, organic free range etc and we pay double the price of just organically produced diary for it.. we do this because we think that the exploitation of animals is wrong and unnecessary. but i dont think everyone should follow suit on this. i realize there are health concerns for some people that are genuine and absolutely require taking in animal protein. i am probably one of those people but have made the choice of compassion for the animals over and above my own health but i would never expect others to follow that model especially those who work labor for a living and need the fortitude to do their job.

im not sure your argument about chimps is worth replying to. its based on a lot of assumptions and anthropomorphizing that im not sure is justified but in any case im not advocating for there to be no zoo's here. im saying that when dealing with living beings we should avoid exploitation wherever possible and in all cases have a motive of causing no harm to the animals unless it is deemed totally necessary. zoo's MAY be able to exist under a truly humane model but we are not even close to that model at present.

zoo's do not rise to that level and deserve criticism. in fact they would still be profoundly exploitative and miserable places were it not for people who speak out against them and advocate for the animals who are in them.

and finally i would like to point out that i have not tried to defame your character at all here and am having a good faith discussion with you because YOU have been willing to actually engage in good faith yourself. i respect your posts.

@Mack McMarkles if you can read my posts like these and accuse me of lecturing i think you are arguing in bad faith as gabe is/was.

My character is highly defamable so defame away if you feel like it

I agree that human beings should call out exploitation, but, we have to be careful what lines we draw and where. I'm not saying the existence of zoos is "justified" I'm saying they exist in an ethical landscape so brutal that any exploitation via zoo is so minimal it's not worth serious consideration.

Right now, we have a planet that is being clear-cut and polluted to a degree that has scientists saying we've entered a new epoch, the anthropocene. The ethical landscape matters. It happens to be the case that the human species is saving some animals from that devastation by putting them in safe places, and those places are able to exist by exhibiting those animals. When we zero in on people like Gabe, we find a person working in a system of vast global destruction trying to make things a little bit better, for a small number of animals, as much as possible.

In terms of my anthropomorphizing, I think you're throwing that term around too loosely.

First, I'm simply showing some faith in the theory of evolution, in essentially saying that a smiling ape is trying to do what a human does when it smiles, at least to some degree. (Show friendliness)
We can get a sense of an animals temperament without empathizing with it as though it were a human. It would be ridiculous to totally ignore our similarities with animals for fear of anthropomorphizing. Sapolsky proves convincingly that animals behave like human beings in certain ways, to varying levels of complexity.

A bacteria on a piece of bread is in some ways exploiting the hard work of Mr. O'Leary at the bread factory just by nature of its existence. Is humans setting up a co-habitat with animals in a confined and safe space exploitative by nature or is it actually "natural" (since humans are just animals)...?

From an Alien perspective watching from above - they would see animals interacting in bizarre ways, humans being just one of many. An alien conversation might go something like: "those humans seem to confine and care for other species on their planet! Weird! Why don't they eat them?"

Of course, we're talking about Zoos with people like Gabe at them, who care for and love animals. Zoos that exist to profit from and torture animals are a different kind of space.

Really, we need two different words - Zoos that act as preservation centers where human beings and animals are able to provide some mutual benefit to each other, and zoos where the primary goal is to make money and crush anything that stands in the way of that. They should be called something else, like prisons or shit-camps. Something like that.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

My character is highly defamable so defame away if you feel like it

I agree that human beings should call out exploitation, but, we have to be careful what lines we draw and where. I'm not saying the existence of zoos is "justified" I'm saying they exist in an ethical landscape so brutal that any exploitation via zoo is so minimal it's not worth serious consideration.

Right now, we have a planet that is being clear-cut and polluted to a degree that has scientists saying we've entered a new epoch, the anthropocene. The ethical landscape matters. It happens to be the case that the human species is saving some animals from that devastation by putting them in safe places, and those places are able to exist by exhibiting those animals. When we zero in on people like Gabe, we find a person working in a system of vast global destruction trying to make things a little bit better, for a small number of animals, as much as possible.

In terms of my anthropomorphizing, I think you're throwing that term around too loosely.

First, I'm simply showing some faith in the theory of evolution, in essentially saying that a smiling ape is trying to do what a human does when it smiles, at least to some degree. (Show friendliness)
We can get a sense of an animals temperament without empathizing with it as though it were a human. It would be ridiculous to totally ignore our similarities with animals for fear of anthropomorphizing. Sapolsky proves convincingly that animals behave like human beings in certain ways, to varying levels of complexity.

A bacteria on a piece of bread is in some ways exploiting the hard work of Mr. O'Leary at the bread factory just by nature of its existence. Is humans setting up a co-habitat with animals in a confined and safe space exploitative by nature or is it actually "natural" (since humans are just animals)...?

From an Alien perspective watching from above - they would see animals interacting in bizarre ways, humans being just one of many. An alien conversation might go something like: "those humans seem to confine and care for other species on their planet! Weird! Why don't they eat them?"

Of course, we're talking about Zoos with people like Gabe at them, who care for and love animals. Zoos that exist to profit from and torture animals are a different kind of space.

Really, we need two different words - Zoos that act as preservation centers where human beings and animals are able to provide some mutual benefit to each other, and zoos where the primary goal is to make money and crush anything that stands in the way of that. They should be called something else, like prisons or shit-camps. Something like that.

Unfortunately I've gotten busy at work for a bit here but will respond when I can but what I would like to say quickly is that this is the good faith discussion I wanted to have from the beginning and I'm glad to be having with you. It's ok to disagree but at least we have found some common ground it seems.

The exchange between you and I proves it can be done without any slander necessary but I do disagree with some of your points the main one being....... I think our exploitation of animals is linked up with our exploitation of the world inextricably... and I can't help but come at this from a spiritual perspective as a Christian. I think when we exploit animals for our own selfish gain as zoo's do we are harming our own soul and we are desensitizing it to suffering and in a way that is for our own pleasure........ that seems to me to make it an even worse endeavor... egregious even.

We cannot imprison animals and exploit them without doing harm to our own conscience our own morality and our own internal good. Be are monsters for selfish pleasure .....

I'm using the word anthropomorphization often because Gabe used it to pretend I didn't have any right to speak out at all about what an animal would or wouldn't like. Of course that is an absurd position but when you came in using that argument for the other sides position I just thought it was worth pointing out. In all honesty I think we can see much more than we are allowed to by many scientific minds and I think Jane Goodall showed us that by being willing to stand outside of the current bias of scientific understanding and actually see the animals for what they do obviously were.... beings with culture and feelings and self awareness. I conceed you point but time permitting would use the same principle to argue my position and point out that is only one species in zoo's anyway.

Maybe more time later to reply and thank you for the discussion.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

@gremins you literally describe yourself as an angel who came in offering nothing but good will and stated that Gabe was solely bad faith. I cannot take you seriously when that is the beginning point for your discussion and how you view yourself and others.

Had you instead said something like 'perhaps I came off wrong, but that was not my intent' instead of 'I WAS PURE... YOU WERE TERRIBLE' you would likely get better engagement.

You still continue to describe your engagement as various forms of angelic. Anyway I am curious if you are vegan, if you care to answer?

Zookeeper gabe mistook my position and has lied about me ever since even though I have explained to him that I was coming from good faith. Some people piled on and the people who didn't and have been willing to engage honestly with me have proven my good faith..... look at the posts I've made.

In light of the posts I have made I need no defense for my position.

I think Gabe intentionally took my post the wrong way and in any case he should now see clearly that it wasn't the case and be willing to engage in good faith but he isn't.

 

[ferrisjso]

Alright, well, if you're talking about having a pure altruistic motive for zoos vs a profit motive then we have to parce this into two separate conversations, one historical (Zoos have their own history and place in culture. The history of zoos profile serious changes in attitude and behavior reflective of changes in the culture at large) and one ideological (Capitalism vs some manner of social altruism).
At present, I would argue there are zero altruistic pursuits being pursed purely altruistically in our current model of civilization. (Zoos in fact would be the lesser in exploitative practice compared to, say, McDonalds. )

As for part 1 - I think the changes in Zoos and social attitudes about animals are pretty obvious. For some fun, pointed examples of cultural changes we could look at Theodore Roosevelts taxidermy vs Bill Clinton's veganism.

For part 2 - Let's take a brief look at the history exploitative practices by humans in general.
Since human beings discovered we could strap a yoke to an Ox and have it till a farm we have been exploiting one another. A hunter-gatherer, state of nature type society might not be considered exploitative, but those kind of societies are subject to annihilation by diseases and so it looks like you might be forced to choose, at root, between a culture founded on some kind of exploitation (of animals and humans) or a hunter-gatherer existence where all that you love exists on a the knife edge of bacterial destruction. It seems humans have chosen to reject a hunter-gatherer lifestyle whenever an alternative is present. Medicine is largely responsible for that.

To zoom to the present: the phone or laptop you're typing on has batteries built from a cobalt mine where workers are exploited for profit. The university departments where veganism is taught are built on land that was once used as grazing ground for animals, built by workers who likely were paid poorly and got injured on the job.

This brings us back to the exploitative nature of zoos - it seems they fall in line, ethically, with most other institutions and activities in our society. Meaning it's all deeply compromised if you're going to use foundational exploitation as a cause for judging something as ethically reprehensible.

Onto animals being "subaltern" - voiceless. I think, for example, videos like these are proof that when the animals welfare is taken care of, they respond with love and affection the highest degree they are capable of showing.

Spoiler

Animals are also capable of showing anger.

Spoiler

And I think their behavior at zoos lets the zookeepers and the people around them know how they feel and how they want to be treated.

According to Stanford biology professor Robert Sapolsky, we are also very genetically similar to chimps. I've attached videos he's done that explore the similarities between chimps and humans. I think these similarities indicate that our intuition about what makes them happy are therefore at least somewhat trustworthy.

Spoiler

Spoiler

So now we get, finally, to the motivation behind zoos and why we have them at all. You argued that even if the animals have some capacity to voice their pleasure or displeasure, the motive for their existence, on our end, or seems to be, profit and exhibition based. So, that's not great. But, then again, you're talking about the foundational structure of our society here. How much of that motive do you hang on Zoos, in and of themselves, vs the society they operate in?

And, when we look at the details of how they tend to operate in our society, the profit they generate comes from humans observing the animals. Not eating them or destroying them in any way. If the zookeeper gabes are treating the animals as kindly as they are capable of, that is much better than most of what we do and have done.

In the Roman coliseum, animals were used for sex shows, were simply killed live in front of people, were forced to fight each other - all for exhibition. In zoos, people who love these animals try to keep them happy and use the fact that they can generate a profit by people coming to see them to keep them alive instead of being eaten or destroyed.

I therefore think it makes sense to to support my G, Zookeeper Gabe, in his vocation.

This was a very high quality response.

 

[Mack McMarkles]

Zookeeper game mistook my position and has lied about me ever since even though I have explained to him that I was coming from good faith. Some people piled on and the people who didn't and have been willing to engage honestly with me have proven my good faith..... look at the posts I've made.

In light of the posts I have made I need no defense for my position.

I think Gabe intentionally took my post the wrong way and in any case he should now see clearly that it wasn't the case and be willing to engage in good faith but he isn't.

Right. And this is where my engagement ends with you as I too can read your posts and your constant refrain that you were angelic and perfect and he was a bad guy, is just not what i read.

Sorry to the rest here for the derail. I won't serve as gremins partner in that any more as he seems to be only looking for people to engage him so he can continue the same line of him being 'prefect' and 'Gabe being bad'.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Right. And this is where my engagement ends with you as I too can read your posts and your constant refrain that you were angelic and perfect and he was a bad guy, is just not what i read.

Sorry to the rest here for the derail. I won't serve as gremins partner in that any more as he seems to be only looking for people to engage him so he can continue the same line of him being 'prefect' and 'Gabe being bad'.

sorry you feel that way.

i know what my intentions were and the care my daughter and in put in so as not to offend while discussing a difficult subject. insisting that i started this discussion in good faith (which i did) is a very far distance from claiming to be angelic. its even quite a low bar in fact.

i hope you have a wonderful day friend.

 

[Zookeeper Gabe]

Man, this thread really took an unexpected turn.

Anti-cap discussions are actually important but unfortunately rarely lead anywhere. If people can’t see that modern zoos actually stand for education(not just signage but the classes the education dept teach), conservation(AZA zoos contribute over 100 million dollars to conservation programs and many species have been saved from extinction from breeding programs in zoos) , animal welfare and aren’t just to show off an animal there’s not much I can do.

 

[TribalDrumz]

Warning. Leopard kills . brutal, but shows dam agility,smarts, power of African Leopard. I love this channel no click bait.