Zoo and wildlife zeitgeists

My guess is we will look at how conservation out west with species like grizzly bears, bison, and wolves stayed so backwards for so long. We will look back at how certain species were never restored to the wild that may have been able to be restored.

As far as zoos are concerned, I think it will be the phasing out of certain species that may never be seen in zoos again. I will also be curious to see the state of elephants in captivity and if someday it will be unacceptable to keep warm-weather species in zoos in cold climates.

By 2050 I am also curious what the state of wildlife in India will be, considering the massive human population.
 
Parrotsandrew said:
Is there a "worst enclosure photo" thread?! I'll probably like some of them!! (I am a big fan of iron bars and railings.)
Click to expand...

Just been looking through that thread - no idea how I managed to miss it. I must admit there are some pretty poor exhibits pictured, but some are not what I'd call bad and following the link to the Monaco gallery I loved the macaw exhibit and the others I looked at were just the sort of thing I like.
 
One thing we will look back on is how stupid we were using things like unrenewable fossil fuels and pollutants with all the free, renewable, and envrionmentally friendly solutions out there. We will look back on how we allowed poaching to go on at the rate it does and will be ashamed at the little punishments given to those who commit wildlife crimes. In the future, hopefully we will look upon elephants as three species and one with four or five subspecies. Hopefully cloning and the such will be far further along and we will be either close to or able to fill in the DNA blanks and one day see species like the Northern White Rhino and, and I know I'm just being very optimistic, the Thylacine. But, again, like I said earlier, zoos could be in ruin and holding very few and little species with many, many valuable species Extinct and the Earth in envrionmental ruin and on a crash course with total destruction. But I suppose only time will tell. I do kind of like how things are zoo-wise today although I would make some imporvements.

~Thylo:cool:
 
I suspect that you are in a minority if you liked some of those exhibits/enclosures, Parrotsandrew. ;)

I think that for the most part, we will all look back and say "why did you allow the world's population of humans to explode like that?".

We may also look back and wonder why we never did pursue wildlife smugglers and poachers with the same vigour as we pursued gun runners, drug pushers, and political dissidents.

Maybe someone on this thread already said it (indeed, I have a vague recollection), but we may lament not having a Noah's Ark of DNA of all known species similar to the seed bank in the Arctic.

And as an overarching statement, I will say that in 2050, there will be less conservationists than there are now, because I think the planet will be so messed up that we will just be concerned with our own survival and that of 10+ billion people.
 
nanoboy said:
Maybe someone on this thread already said it (indeed, I have a vague recollection), but we may lament not having a Noah's Ark of DNA of all known species similar to the seed bank in the Arctic.

And as an overarching statement, I will say that in 2050, there will be less conservationists than there are now, because I think the planet will be so messed up that we will just be concerned with our own survival and that of 10+ billion people.
Click to expand...

I think it has been said several times. I kind of just said it myself also.

Unfortunately, you may be correct...:( But we really should try to be optimistic and work as hard as we can to keep that from happening.

~Thylo:cool:
 
I think that by 2050 we may have less zoos, not because of public opinion, but because some will have to be abandoned when the sea level rises as a result of increased polar melt. And we'll be wondering why nobody did anything to prevent it.

:(

Hix
 
elefante said:
and if someday it will be unacceptable to keep warm-weather species in zoos in cold climates.
Click to expand...

And vice versa, with cold-weather species in warmer climates.
I'm just going to say that the amount of Polar Bears held in zoos located in warm climates or in humid regions will be reducced, unless someone can create a chilled exhibit for them (example SeaWorld Orland0.) I'm also going to predict that Walruses will eventually be gone from U.S. institutions, given their current state in captivity.
 
One pretty obvious one would be why we worked to save and conserve species when we legally hunted them for trophy and ate them (ie American Bison).

Why we allowed the exotic pet trade and the introduction of invasive species will be another.

~Thylo:cool:
 
ThylacineAlive said:
One thing we will look back on is how stupid we were using things like unrenewable fossil fuels and pollutants with all the free, renewable, and envrionmentally friendly solutions out there. We will look back on how we allowed poaching to go on at the rate it does and will be ashamed at the little punishments given to those who commit wildlife crimes. In the future, hopefully we will look upon elephants as three species and one with four or five subspecies. Hopefully cloning and the such will be far further along and we will be either close to or able to fill in the DNA blanks and one day see species like the Northern White Rhino and, and I know I'm just being very optimistic, the Thylacine. But, again, like I said earlier, zoos could be in ruin and holding very few and little species with many, many valuable species Extinct and the Earth in envrionmental ruin and on a crash course with total destruction. But I suppose only time will tell. I do kind of like how things are zoo-wise today although I would make some imporvements.

~Thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

Nothing is more efficient for our current use than burning carbon.
 
nanoboy said:
Don't mix up "efficient" with "cheap". ;)
Click to expand...

everything has external costs. Only greens never admit that collecting the rare earths for their solar panels or the people who lack power because their taxes price people out of the energy market they never like to mention those. Or the jobs lost because of higher energy costs just to make a point.

But I am paying around 3 dollars per million btu of Natural gas. From everything I have been reading in the industry papers you guys better stop worrying and learn to love the Fracking.
 
tschandler71 said:
everything has external costs. Only greens never admit that collecting the rare earths for their solar panels or the people who lack power because their taxes price people out of the energy market they never like to mention those. Or the jobs lost because of higher energy costs just to make a point.

But I am paying around 3 dollars per million btu of Natural gas. From everything I have been reading in the industry papers you guys better stop worrying and learn to love the Fracking.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But you said it was efficient, which is untrue. Fossil fuels are and the machines that use them are quite inefficient. Why they persist, is because they are cheap (and safer than nuclear power). At the end of the day, the average consumer does not care where the energy comes from, as long as it is affordable and reliable to drive their cars or warm their homes. This, of course, is why many alternative energy sources don't catch on because they just can't compete with fossil fuels, despite often being more efficient.
 
nanoboy said:
I agree with you. But you said it was efficient, which is untrue. Fossil fuels are and the machines that use them are quite inefficient. Why they persist, is because they are cheap (and safer than nuclear power). At the end of the day, the average consumer does not care where the energy comes from, as long as it is affordable and reliable to drive their cars or warm their homes. This, of course, is why many alternative energy sources don't catch on because they just can't compete with fossil fuels, despite often being more efficient.
Click to expand...

In America, gas isn't very cheap anymore. It's only a matter of time before we loose all our fossil fuels anyway and are forced to adapt to the more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
In America, gas isn't very cheap anymore. It's only a matter of time before we loose all our fossil fuels anyway and are forced to adapt to the more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
Click to expand...

Natural gas is very cheap. Just a few years ago it was 7 dollars per million btu now it hovers around 3 dollars. That is fracking and the same thing is happening in the oil industry as well. Look at all the jobs being created in North Dakota at the Bakken, Texas at the Eagle Ford, Louisiana at the Tuscaloosa, up and down the Appalachians in the Barnett. Fracking has unlocked tons of cheap energy. And all of this was done without having to fund another Solyndra with tax payer money. I've seen you post that you were a teenager so I'll cut you some slack but you need to realize the facts of the American Energy industry.


And the price of fossil fuels currently have more to do with a a fiat currency than anything.

Any actual claims of renewables being more efficient never factor in the replacement of the power already in place. We poured billions into Solar companies for pipe dreams.
 
I didn't mean Natural Gas when I said 'gas', I meant gasoline, oil, that stuff that's now 5 dollars a gallon! Sorry for the confusion.

~Thylo:cool:
 
I paid $6.36 a gallon last friday ($1.40 a litre) - and that was with discount fuel vouchers.

:p

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top