In a world without wildlife, would zoo captivity have value?

[TheMightyOrca]

A sentiment I often see (though fortunately not here on ZooChat) is that if/when the planet goes to crap and animal species go extinct, they will at least be preserved in zoos. There are some species that are extinct in the wild, but still alive in zoos, with the hope that they can eventually start up a wild population again. But lets say we have a species where a captive population can be maintained, but a wild population will never again be a possibility. Maybe their environment is damaged beyond repair, or maybe the captive born individuals just aren't suited for release. I think about this subject from time to time, and even had a lengthy discussion with Steven Universe fans on the subject in regards to the episode "The Zoo", but for some reason never thought to make a thread here.

Personally I hate the sentiment of "at least we'll have them in zoos". While I am a supporter of zoos (I wouldn't be here if I didn't like them, ha ha) I do acknowledge that captive animals are often quite different from their wildlife counterparts. So it's a poor substitute for preserving the species in the wild. A bigger concern of mine is that I fear this kind of attitude makes people complacent when it comes to conservation, like they think that having them in zoos is good enough. Furthermore, the purpose of zoos is to educate people about wildlife and conservation. Would it be a good idea for zoos to spend resources on species that can never be saved? I can imagine zoos giving up on saving the unsavable when it comes to small, unpopular species, but it's hard to picture them letting go of charismatic megafauna like elephants or tigers should they go extinct in the wild.

Still, maybe I'm being too harsh, hence why I'm posting this thread. Do you think there is any value in maintaining a zoo population of a species that will never again exist in the wild?

 

[LaughingDove]

I can't actually think of a situation in which a species will never again exist in the wild but could still exist in zoos. Another difficulty that your question raises is drawing the line between a heavily managed wild population and a captive population and although I can see a species never existing again in the wild proper, I think there will always be a chance for it to exist in heavily managed nature reserves and for many species that is already becoming their fate but I don't think that's a valid reason to give up.

Wherever there are people, I think there will be people who want some amount of natural space with animals in it and that leads to the educational aspect of zoos. The possibility of a species being released into the wild eventually isn't the only point of having the animal in zoos. If people don't get to see animals in zoos then they will have no reason to want to keep animals around in the future.

 

[Jurek7]

But lets say we have a species where a captive population can be maintained, but a wild population will never again be a possibility.

I generally see such philosophical (or pseudo-philosophical) discussions as nonsense.

First, they force their views on people with different opinion. If people who see no value in zoo animals will close zoos, they would force their choice on part of society who sees value in zoo animals.

Second, the situation considered is not real. There is no example of such a species. We also honestly cannot say what technology and world situation will be 20, 100 or 200 years in future to reliably claim whether animals could or could not exist in the wild. There are many examples that people were mistaken in their predictions. For example educated people in the 1920s or 1950s often believed that technological progress will make all large wild animals in Europe and USA extinct long before 2017.

I do acknowledge that captive animals are often quite different from their wildlife counterparts. So it's a poor substitute for preserving the species in the wild.

There is some 'domestication'. However, still a difference between zoo and wild tiger is smaller than difference between different tiger populations in the wild.

I fear this kind of attitude makes people complacent when it comes to conservation, like they think that having them in zoos is good enough.

I honestly don't know serious real examples. To the opposite, presence of zoo animals makes their wild relatives much less likely to go extinct, because zoos are very good in mobilizing wild conservation. There is good evidence of that.

Would it be a good idea for zoos to spend resources on species that can never be saved?

I consider that a chimpanzee or any other animal has scientific, emotional and cultural value. Certainly. it is therefore worth saving even outside its habitat. The opposite answer would be true if animals would have no other value than pieces of an ecosystem.

***

Laughing Dove made a very good point that a concept of wildlife or existence in the wild has become largely obsolete. Reserves are increasingly managed or modified. Habitats are different, predators are often gone, populations are managed by culling. So-called wild animals already live in a different condition than 200 or 1000 years ago.

For example, no place in Eastern North America or Western Europe any longer has all native carnivore predators. One might seriously tell that all deer, foxes, rabbits etc. live in artificial environment with lowered predator pressure, and it is somewhat an act of faith to believe they did not lose part of their natural escaping ability in the meantime.

 

[Giant Panda]

First, they force their views on people with different opinion. If people who see no value in zoo animals will close zoos, they would force their choice on part of society who sees value in zoo animals.

Aren't you doing the same thing?

Also, reductio ad absurdum: "Don't do it if you don't like it, but leave me to my fun" is an argument equally applicable to theft, abuse, murder, etc.

 

[Jurek7]

Aren't you doing the same thing?

This is not symmetrical. If people care about animals, they would suffer when animals are extinct or not visible. If people don't care about animals, they have no harm that animals exist.

By analogy: I don't care about baseball, but I do not advocate closing all sports stadiums as a waste of money. Because I respect that many other people care, and should have way to enjoy their baseball. It is simple respect to others who have different views than you.

 

[Giant Panda]

This is not symmetrical. If people care about animals, they would suffer when animals are extinct or not visible. If people don't care about animals, they have no harm that animals exist.

By analogy: I don't care about baseball, but I do not advocate closing all sports stadiums as a waste of money. Because I respect that many other people care, and should have way to enjoy their baseball. It is simple respect to others who have different views than you.

Right, but your analogy requires anti-zoo folk holding their beliefs because they don't enjoy visiting zoos. Baseball might not be your thing, but presumably you don't think the ball suffers. My suggestions attribute their stance to the more selfless idea that zoos harm their animals. Whether we agree with the second proposition or not, it is more accurate.

Hence why your logic fails. Antis avoiding zoos doesn't solve their problem – only yours. As I pointed out in my last post, a murderer could equally tell everyone against killing not to do it, and go on his merry murdery way. Clearly, that's absurd. The reason is that other individuals suffer from murder, or theft, or assault, and I can condemn that without being a victim myself. If antis believe animals suffer in zoos, their desire to close zoos is just a logical extension of that belief.

It's no more disrespectful to opponents than your implication that zoos should remain open as long as their supporters exist.

 

[temp]

There is no example of such a species.

If we expand to aquatic species and aquariums, there is. The freshwater snail Aylacostoma brunneum is one such example and its relative A. chloroticum may follow soon. They both survive in captivity, but the former is gone from the wild and the latter barely hanging on. The only known natural habitat, near rapids in a section of the Paraná River, are gone and will never return. The Yacyretá Dam was built and the cliffs were blown up. Even if the dam was removed again (zero chance of that happening), the rapids therefore won't just reappear. This is a fairly standard way of making dams and a huge number of dams are either planned or already in the process of being completed in the Amazon, Congo, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Unfortunately, pretty much every major rapid section in the tropics/subtropics has its own endemic rheophilic species. With the exception of previously mentioned snails, inverts (and plants, e.g. many Podostemaceae) are largely ignored and all will disappear entirely. Fish are not entirely ignored and several species that may well lose their only habitat due to dams are kept and bred in captivity (e.g., several Teleogramma). Even among loricariids, a group that is particularly diverse in rapids, there have been leaps forward and several species that were considered impossible to breed in captivity have now been bred. The Volta Grande rapids are in the process of being eliminated by the Belo Monte Dam. Several of its endemics (including some species that are maintained in captivity) are now known to actually be near-endemics, also present in either Iriri rapids or middle Xingu rapids. Unfortunately that won't help long-term, as dams are planned there too.

So, we're in a situation where no natural habitat remains or will remain. In the snail the current idea is to "re-"introduce them to nearby places. Not really their natural range, but the nearest available. The problem with some of the current mega-dam projects, such as those of the Congo, is that all theoretically useful habitat for some of the rheophilic species will disappear forever. Some species that become extinct in the wild can't even be released to nearby "pseudo-natural" habitats. Some Lake Victoria cichlids are in a similar situation and that lake really is damaged beyond repair. Entirely removing the Nile perch is also more theoretical than a real possibility. Then there are the migratory riverine species that apparently are unable to use fish ladders, elevators and alike. When the last truly wild Yangtze sturgeon are gone, which may happen soon, will the released ever be able to breed in the wild? Based on presently available evidence, the answer is no. We're pretty much in a situation where we repeatedly have to restock from captivity to let them live a non-reproductive life in the wild. Do they really count as wild then?

 

[Jurek7]

As I pointed out in my last post, a murderer could equally tell everyone against killing not to do it, and go on his merry murdery way.

Your lack of logic.

The fact that murder victim suffers is not an 'opinion' but a provable fact.
Likewise, it is provable fact that animals as whole are better when zoos exist, that right like freedoms are not applicable to animals because they can neither understand not obey them, that animals themselves don't understand a concept of freedom, that quality of life of animals in zoos is as good or better than wild animals. There are several threads on this forum about it, and I do not feel I have to repeat them.

Close to 100% of people agree that murder is wrong.
About 90% people agree that modern zoos are good.

Your logic failed, because it falsely exchanged objective fact with a personal opinion, and fringe view with a majority view.

It's no more disrespectful to opponents than your implication that zoos should remain open as long as their supporters exist.

I am not obliged to respect anti zoofolk any more, that respect a fly which has own ideas how we should share my food.

Actually the belief in animal freedom is false, which means that one can produce any number of paradoxical or impossible suggestions. I usually don't discuss the concept itself but give paradoxes. For example, one can ask anti-zoo folk:

- Stop washing because you are harming countless mites living on your skin. Washing once per two weeks would reduce their suffering.
- Go to cat food factory and enlist, to exchange your single useless existence to helping several cats.

Which remembered me the ultimate reason why I don't discuss this usually. Because it is worthless, despite the superficial wisdom. Talking about improving a gibbon enclosure or protecting a pupfish makes the world better place. Such discussions don't.

 

[Loxodonta Cobra]

This article I found last night might be a good fit for the discussion topic of this thread: Animals Always: Is There Enough Room in the Ark?

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Preservation of animals that can't be released can have various reasons. Historic or cultural reasons, for education, research or simply because people like then. For those reasons people preserve endangered domestic breeds like bentheimer pigs and poitou donkeys. These have lost their primary function, but are kept alive for various reasons. Sometimes a breed (or species) can unexpectedly gain a new function, like the bentheimer pig which was almost extinct once but is currently used for more animal-friendly meat production. The situation for a species like the aformented Aylacostoma is quite alike the situation of husumer pigs and Twente geese.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

Preservation of animals that can't be released can have various reasons. Historic or cultural reasons, for education, research or simply because people like then. For those reasons people preserve endangered domestic breeds like bentheimer pigs and poitou donkeys. These have lost their primary function, but are kept alive for various reasons. Sometimes a breed (or species) can unexpectedly gain a new function, like the bentheimer pig which was almost extinct once but is currently used for more animal-friendly meat production. The situation for a species like the aformented Aylacostoma is quite alike the situation of husumer pigs and Twente geese.

Domestic animals are a different case, but I didn't consider historical or cultural value.

 

[Giant Panda]

The fact that murder victim suffers is not an 'opinion' but a provable fact.
Likewise, it is provable fact that animals as whole are better when zoos exist.

Neither are "provable". Even ignoring painless deaths, you're over-stating our knowledge of animal sentience. No-one has unequivocally demonstrated consciousness in non-human animals*, so of course we can't prove what they're experiencing. Therefore, it's also debatable whether the sum total of their experience is positive. Expanding that insoluble calculation to every animal in every zoo is not only unproven, it's absurd.

that right like freedoms are not applicable to animals because they can neither understand not obey them, that animals themselves don't understand a concept of freedom, that quality of life of animals in zoos is as good or better than wild animals. There are several threads on this forum about it, and I do not feel I have to repeat them.

I think you may have to repeat them, because I fail to see how the right to freedom is inextricably linked to understanding the concept of freedom. I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think it's self-evident either. Also, it's not a "provable fact" that animals (or some of them) don't have a concept of freedom. Oh, and how don't animals "obey" freedom? What does that even mean?

As for QoL, again the empirical evidence isn't there for most species and isn't objective fact for any of them. My logic may be flawed, but it's you who confuses fact with opinion (in my opinion ).

Close to 100% of people agree that murder is wrong.
About 90% people agree that modern zoos are good.

I read a US study recently that suggested anti-zoo sentiment was significantly more prevalent. Unfortunately, I can't find it now.

Your logic failed, because it falsely exchanged objective fact with a personal opinion, and fringe view with a majority view.

So, are you against anti-zoo opinion because it's counter to objective fact or because yours is the majority view? The latter is irrelevant, because the former is untrue. Defend zoos all you like, but recognise there's often no evidence for your claims – provable or otherwise.

I am not obliged to respect anti zoofolk any more, that respect a fly which has own ideas how we should share my food.

Which, again, makes you a hypocrite for expecting it in return.

Actually the belief in animal freedom is false, which means that one can produce any number of paradoxical or impossible suggestions. I usually don't discuss the concept itself but give paradoxes. For example, one can ask anti-zoo folk:

- Stop washing because you are harming countless mites living on your skin. Washing once per two weeks would reduce their suffering.
- Go to cat food factory and enlist, to exchange your single useless existence to helping several cats.

Which remembered me the ultimate reason why I don't discuss this usually. Because it is worthless, despite the superficial wisdom. Talking about improving a gibbon enclosure or protecting a pupfish makes the world better place. Such discussions don't.

I fail to see how this is relevant. Obviously I disagree with those against zoos, I was just picking up on your incoherent logic**.



*Any ZooChatter after a Nobel Prize might want to try coming up with one.

**In a friendly way

 

[Jurek7]

Neither are "provable". Even ignoring painless deaths, you're over-stating our knowledge of animal sentience. No-one has unequivocally demonstrated consciousness in non-human animals*, so of course we can't prove what they're experiencing.

Doubly wrong.

First, I meant that existence of zoos helps directly or indirectly conservation, that is animals existence. Whether the individual animal likes it is rather irelevant - like lots of individual people toil to make human society exist.

Second, you are ignorant about much of the science of animal behavior. There are provable ways to determine what animals are feeling or understanding and what not.
This removes much of free opinion what animal feels in a zoo.Unfortunately, most people who engage in such philosophical discussions are ignornant, too.

There are easy experiments, giving animals choice, which can prove whether animals e.g. prefer to live alone or in group, or prefer novelty to a routine. There were also experiments which proven that animals understand more abstract qualities, e.g. whether they prefer risk or are risk averse, or even this well known experiment that animals understand honesty and want to be treated equally to others, independently from what their consitions are.

But there is no experiment which proven that animals understand a concept of freedom. In contrast, lots of observations showed that animals treated well stay in zoo exhibits which they could leave, or voluntarily return to them.

Which, again, makes you a hypocrite for expecting it in return.

Quite the opposite. I treat everybody with respect at the beginning. But if somebody is not respectful himself I withdraw my respect. Otherwise I would be bothered by people trying to get on my head.

Which is the best strategy of dealing with marginal views and movements. Don't listen to every idiot because you give him prominence. Soon there would be vegetarians claiming they are offended that supermarkets sell meat next to soybean, and fruitarians will demand equal recognition of right of plants not to be cut, except fruits which fallen of their own.

 

[Jurek7]

If we expand to aquatic species and aquariums, there is. The freshwater snail Aylacostoma brunneum is one such example and its relative A. chloroticum may follow soon. They both survive in captivity, but the former is gone from the wild and the latter barely hanging on. The only known natural habitat, near rapids in a section of the Paraná River, are gone and will never return.

The concept of letting animal extinct 'because has no place in the wild' is very commonly used as an excuse for complacency and not doing conservation.

In a similar situation, Kihansy spray toad existed in a place which was destroyed by construction of a hydroelectric plant. Bronx zoo coordinated conservation, and it turned that a modest construction restored part of the habitat next to the dam.

I think you should read some modern conservation philosophy. For example, the concept that every species has value of its own and can become useful in future in a way not conceivable today is not new. It was already accepted decades ago during UN declarations of protecting biodiversit
y.

I written this mostly for the sake of younger members, who may not know there are things called conservation science, conservation philosophy and animal behavior science. I do not think I should or want to rewrite basics of these on the internet. Anybody interested in this - go yourself to the library!

 

[Giant Panda]

First, I meant that existence of zoos helps directly or indirectly conservation, that is animals existence. Whether the individual animal likes it is rather irelevant - like lots of individual people toil to make human society exist.

That was unclear, but obviously I agree zoos benefit conservation. I disagree that animal welfare is irrelevant, but hey ho.

There are provable ways to determine what animals are feeling or understanding and what not.
This removes much of free opinion what animal feels in a zoo.

There are numerous widely accepted methods to infer how an animal is feeling. Most biologists (myself included) accept that at least some probably are aware, and even inverts display so-called phenomenal consciousness. However, since animals are non-verbal and we're reliant on the argument from analogy (the "other-minds problem"), these are only inferences. None is "provable fact".

To demonstrate that with each of your suggestions, here are what Daniel Dennett termed "killjoy explanations":

giving animals choice, which can prove whether animals e.g. prefer to live alone or in group, or prefer novelty to a routine.

Preference tests pose countless potential pitfalls, not least of which that animals (and humans) can exhibit preferences without being consciously aware of them. With regards to favouring group-living, for instance, are facultatively social bacteria conscious?

There were also experiments which proven that animals understand more abstract qualities, e.g. whether they prefer risk or are risk averse

This is a personality trait. It does not require conscious thought.

or even this well known experiment that animals understand honesty and want to be treated equally to others, independently from what their consitions are.

This is known as the inequity response. For anyone interested, Jurek seems to be alluding to this study:

Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297-299.

Again, it does not require consciousness. Individuals which act against their own self-interest in the short-term by rejecting treats smaller than those received by others may benefit in the long-run as they discourage conspecifics from acting unfairly or encourage fairer individuals to interact with them. It could easily be selected as an instinctive behaviour or arise through conditioning.

But there is no experiment which proven that animals understand a concept of freedom.

Nope, just as no experiment has conclusively demonstrated animals are conscious. In neither case does this mean it is objective fact that these propositions are false. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

In contrast, lots of observations showed that animals treated well stay in zoo exhibits which they could leave, or voluntarily return to them.

And lots of observations show they leave and don't return voluntarily, which nullifies your point.

Quite the opposite. I treat everybody with respect at the beginning. But if somebody is not respectful himself I withdraw my respect. Otherwise I would be bothered by people trying to get on my head.

I really don't see how I can make this any clearer. Antis think zoos are bad and pros think zoos are good. If zoos remain open, the antis will be unhappy. If zoos closed, the pros would be unhappy. Their viewpoint is no more inherently disrespectful to us than ours is to them. Your point was, is, and will remain logically-devoid hypocrisy.