NY Times Takes Another Shot at Zoos

Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Ok, but what about that thread ?

I mean what does this mean ?
Click to expand...
In that thread, you provided evidence countering my belief that humans are not sincerely moral. Despite your evidence I am still not convinced that humans are sincerely moral.

A lot of anti zoo people are similar. You could cite all the books, show all the species saved and etc, but unless something stellar happens to them, they won't change their mind.
 
PossumRoach said:
In that thread, you provided evidence countering my belief that humans are not sincerely moral. Despite your evidence I am still not convinced that humans are sincerely moral.

A lot of anti zoo people are similar. You could cite all the books, show all the species saved and etc, but unless something stellar happens to them, they won't change their mind.
Click to expand...

In that thread if I remember correctly I wasn't actually arguing that humans are "sincerely moral" as that is a complex metaphysical question and no one has any answers to that one yet, neither evolutionary biologists / psychologists nor theologians nor anthropologists nor mathematicians / game theorists and economists sure as hell dont.

Rather what I was challenging was your lazy and cynical stance against conserving species and arguing that the phenomenon of altruism is complex and humans create and have always created socio-culturally moral systems and for a variety of reasons / incentives (and yes often these are selfish ones).

Moreover, I was arguing that it is ultimately within our selfish self interest for the sake of the perpetuation of our species and on an individual level our selfish genes to conserve the biodiversity upon which our collective and individual survival / wellbeing depend.

People conserve species and biodiversity for selfish reasons whether these are for economic incentives or aesthetic or cultural or ideological / religious ones because humans on an individual or collective level have their own ontologies.

Does that reality invalidate efforts to conserve species or make them any less urgent ?

I don't think so and I would question anyone drawing that conclusion and advise them to grow up.
 
Last edited:
I literally just explained you why I brought up that case. You didn't have to dive into the details.

Again, in both cases (me saying that sincere morality does not exist, an anti activity activist ) the person who is being lectured, despite being shown a lot of evidence, only to dismiss it due to a confirmation bias. We are not talking about children who visited a crummy zoo whose perception of zoos changed after visiting a good one. We are talking about adults who

If you explained to me all those stuff about morals and our holy obligation to save the biodiversity only for me to dismiss it by
1) not providing anything to counter your points while
2) not admitting that I was wrong,
then I don't understand how you really think that anti zoo activists are going to have an open mind let alone change their world view if you give them an essay of an counter argument to their claims. That is my point.

If you still are unable to understand what I am trying to explain then the best I could say is "sucks for me that I don't know English as a first language I guess" and suggest you to write your reply as a private message because frankly I don't want to (edit: further) steer away from the topic of NYT writing an article saying "zoos bad".
 
Last edited:
PossumRoach said:
I literally just explained you why I brought up that case. You didn't have to dive into the details.

Again, in both cases (me saying that sincere morality does not exist, an anti activity activist ) the person who is being lectured, despite being shown a lot of evidence, only to dismiss it due to a confirmation bias. We are not talking about children who visited a crummy zoo whose perception of zoos changed after visiting a good one. We are talking about adults who

If you explained to me all those stuff about morals and our holy obligation to save the biodiversity only for me to dismiss it by
1) not providing anything to counter your points while
2) not admitting that I was wrong,
then I don't understand how you really think that anti zoo activists are going to have an open mind let alone change their world view if you give them an essay of an counter argument to their claims. That is my point.

If you still are unable to understand what I am trying to explain then the best I could say is "sucks for me that I don't know English as a first language I guess" and suggest you to write your reply as a private message because frankly I don't want to steer away from the topic of NYT writing an article saying "zoos bad".
Click to expand...

So you are showcasing the hypothetical confirmation bias and intransigence of anti-zoo activists by giving an example of your own bias ?

Now thats an interesting way of putting a message across ... anyway , a couple of points:

1. If you didn't want to steer the conversation away from the article then why mention it at all ? :confused:

2. What is an "anti-activity activist" ? Is the word you are looking for "nihilist"? o_O

3. I never said it was our "holy" obligation :rolleyes: to conserve biodiversity and you would never catch me using that word as I'm an atheist :p
 
PossumRoach said:
Educating others and hoping they are open minded is good and all, but as Batto said, these people won’t change their idea.
Click to expand...

I cannot follow the whole debate, but want to comment on this particular point.

Studies of internet discussions showed, indeed, that people once formed an opinion, are unwilling to change it. In practice it is a bit like first one wins - one who reaches the audience first has an advantage. It is worth knowing in relation to such internet discussions.
 
Jurek7 said:
I cannot follow the whole debate, but want to comment on this particular point.

Studies of internet discussions showed, indeed, that people once formed an opinion, are unwilling to change it. In practice it is a bit like first one wins - one who reaches the audience first has an advantage. It is worth knowing in relation to such internet discussions.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is called confirmation bias and its a well documented phenomenon in the digital world and particularly on social media (and to be fair it is hardly endemic to animal rights activists as there is plenty of it on the pro-zoo side of the argument too).

An individual being unwilling to change or challenge a pre-existing belief or belief system when exposed to information that runs counter to this doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible for them to change their views nor that it is a total waste of time for us to try it just means that it is really hard to bring about.

Moreover, as I said in previous comments there are always people out there who do not yet have a confirmation bias towards pre-existing beliefs on a topic and whose opinions are not fully formed and I think it is definitely worth reaching out to these people.

Certain types of media or platforms will obviously be unsuitable so perhaps it is a matter of seeking out the right platforms to engage in debate and to encourage conversation ?
 
Last edited:
KevinB said:
One of the podcasts I listen to regularly made a special episode to offer a rebuttal to the NY Times anti-zoo article.

BONUS: The Case For Zoos - A Rebuttal To The New York Times Opinion Piece
Click to expand...

I had a listen through this again and then skimmed through the article (again...) and I think that Rossifari generally gives a very good critique of the article.

He goes over the conservation-education role well (and it is very refreshing to hear such enthusiasm for conservation educators), the ex-situ conservation and in-situ conservation contributions are also covered well as his argument against anthromorphism when making judgements about welfare.

One criticism I would give is that there are some valid counter-arguments when it comes to zoos and their contributions through funding of conservation efforts and I would cite those made by zoo insiders such as David Hancocks over the years which IMO should be listened to.

Another criticism I would give is that he didn't really go into the conservation genetics aspect of animals in zoos either.

I share his conclusion about the authors utopian conclusion which frankly was very poor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top