• Robin.Net (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much, I personally felt a lot of empathy towards the animals when I took my son last year. I think it is hard to read every plaque in front of the exhibits and not be sad. Almost every plaque says something about how the animals exhibited are struggling in the wild due to everything humans do to the planet, and each one gives suggestions on how we can improve the world. I may be a rare case though because I can understand and acknowledge the environmental impact we have as humans, and I actually read the plaques. I think you may be right about the majority of people who go to the zoo, but I do feel like it is effective if people engage with the lessons that zoos try to teach.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would be nearly impossible to quantify, but research around this area shows that empathizing with animals through accurate understanding of them is important for conservation support.

      Research suggests that animal-oriented learning institutions—including zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries, and nature centers—may be uniquely positioned to spark and nurture people’s empathy for animals.

      Although this research did not definitively identify links between people, animals, empathy, and conservation behaviors, the evidence indicated that developing empathy toward animals can be a powerful way to promote conservation behaviors.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, the article is full of rhetorical fallacies designed to influence you towards their view that zoos aren’t good.

          Take this part about conservation funding:

          “Zoos, aquariums and botanic gardens are critical conservation partners, and their role should not be under-valued, under-recognized or misunderstood,”

          To which the opposition interviewee states:

          “But the reality is that it’s really a very small fraction of their funding that is going to field conservation.”

          That is not a direct response to the first assertion. The first quote didn’t assert that the majority of funds went to conservation, just that the funds that do are both significant and critical to conservation partners.

          “That puts them collectively among the world’s largest contributors to conservation,” Daniel Ashe, president and CEO of the AZA, told Vox.

          To which the clearly very biased author then responds:

          However, it’s just 5 percent of how much zoos and aquariums spent on operations and construction alone in 2018.

          Soooo? You think getting rid of those funds is better for conservation?

          If you read the part on breeding, they do something similar; they embed one section, that acknowledges that zoos have in fact been key to successful breeding and reintroduction programs, inside several quotes of personal opinions: the first one literally from a newspaper opinion piece, and the second from an actual scientist who acknowledges that the breeding programs do work, but just doesn’t personally think that is justification enough for zoos.

          This article is biased trash. There are plenty of arguments to have about the ethics of zoos, but this article is not dealing with those head-on, because they’re not clear-cut. Instead, it’s trying to trick you into thinking that none of the actual positive impacts of zoos exist.

          This is how smart misinformation works; use leading language and selective quotes to make the viewers think you said something you didn’t, so you can always go, “Oh, but I never SAID the breeding programs don’t work, or that the funding isn’t important!”

        • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You forgot to switch sockpuppets. Also you didn’t notice that I’m not the same user as the other one. Stunning powers of observation on display here.

          • gyrfalcon@beehaw.orgM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not sure what you are talking about with the sockpuppets bit, but please try to be polite when someone confuses you for another user in the thread. It’s a simple mistake and there’s no need to be mean about it. Thanks!

    • Devi@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They typically lay around because they are depressed or tired.

      That’s quite an uneducated viewpoint. Most animals (including us) move a very small part of the day. Finding food, finding mates, etc. Lions will sleep or rest for 21 hours a day. Their active hours tend to be dawn and dusk.

      Beyond that, Nobody is physically poking any animals, that’s not how zoos work. As someone who worked at a zoo bad behaviour is rare, it happens, but it’s dealt with.