Mixed feelings about zoos/aquariums

[g0rph]

Secondly, there is no such thing as an animal being treated ethically if it's in captivity. All animals should be left in their natural habitat; the wild.

Anyone, that goes to a place where an animal is being held prisoner cannot say that they are a vegan.

Got to come back to this.

1. The first sentence is too general and thus wrong. Maybe you mean "wild" animals? And even then, what about rescued wild animals that are unable to go back into the wild for various reasons?
2. Your second sentence reminds me some "vegans" on reddit. Very self-righteous and judgemental. And your quoting the vegan philosophy is simply dogma. We should be treating animals with respect. Not abusing or eating or wearing or testing etc. The rest... whatever. I've never liked dogma, not religious dogma and not dogma that, in the end, a person or persons simply came up with. For the most part, I'm vegan, and whether anyone like it or not, that's generally how I will describe myself. But I live in a non-vegan world, so some of my opinions will likely not match those of the fundamentalists.
Morality is for the most part subjective and ethics are open to change over time.

In general I disagree with zoos. But whilst we live in a non-vegan world, they can be a source of education. No, I don't particularly want to fund them, but it can be a great learning exercise for kids if done correctly.

And I do agree that we need to keep endangered species alive. With any luck in the future, mankind will see the error of its ways and if these animals have vanished from the wild, then that's it...they are gone.
If we can draw back from all the land we use for "livestock", go through a re-wilding process then maybe, just maybe we can bring some creatures back from the brink of extinction.

 

[g0rph]

Got to come back to this.

1. The first sentence is too general and thus wrong. Maybe you mean "wild" animals? And even then, what about rescued wild animals that are unable to go back into the wild for various reasons?
2. Your second sentence reminds me some "vegans" on reddit. Very self-righteous and judgemental. And your quoting the vegan philosophy is simply dogma. We should be treating animals with respect. Not abusing or eating or wearing or testing etc. The rest... whatever. I've never liked dogma, not religious dogma and not dogma that, in the end, a person or persons simply came up with. For the most part, I'm vegan, and whether anyone like it or not, that's generally how I will describe myself. But I live in a non-vegan world, so some of my opinions will likely not match those of the fundamentalists.
Morality is for the most part subjective and ethics are open to change over time.

In general I disagree with zoos. But whilst we live in a non-vegan world, they can be a source of education. No, I don't particularly want to fund them, but it can be a great learning exercise for kids if done correctly.

And I do agree that we need to keep endangered species alive. With any luck in the future, mankind will see the error of its ways and if these animals have vanished from the wild, then that's it...they are gone.
If we can draw back from all the land we use for "livestock", go through a re-wilding process then maybe, just maybe we can bring some creatures back from the brink of extinction.

What do you disagree with @shyvas. That button you pressed is fairly pointless. I made a number of points...

 

[Graeme M]

I agree that generally speaking zoos are not consistent with the ethics of veganism, but at the same time things are a bit more complicated in the real world. There definitely are reasons why some zoos might be acceptable, desirable even, and simply dismissing that because of someone's definition of a moral philosophy seems a bit presumptuous. I get that the animals aren't free to practice life the way they want, but at the end of the day the truth is that they really don't care. That's a concern WE have. What they care about is simply not suffering.

While the same can be said of some forms of animal farming, the difference between that and responsible zoos is that the zoos are aiming to do something positive both for the animals and for us. Farming is not setting out to give the animals a good, long life in relative comfort.

I think people have to make up their own minds about zoos, but as a general position, they aren't consistent with veganism. But that wouldn't stop me going to and supporting good ones.

 

[Tom L.]

@Graeme M I can't be sure... but I think animal rights supporters and vegans (usually these are the same people, granted) oppose zoos because whenever animals and humans interact in any way, most of the time it doesn't go well for the animals. This is so commonly the case that maybe they don't consider the possibility that sometimes the animals might actually benefit. Why bother wasting your time and energy thinking about something as improbable as that, let alone supporting it?

...The other issue is that food has to be provided to him, so choice is being made between one animal and the others. ...

Good point, although I assume this applies only to carnivorous (or partly carnivorous) animals.

 

[fakei]

Got to come back to this.

1. The first sentence is too general and thus wrong. Maybe you mean "wild" animals? And even then, what about rescued wild animals that are unable to go back into the wild for various reasons?
2. Your second sentence reminds me some "vegans" on reddit. Very self-righteous and judgemental. And your quoting the vegan philosophy is simply dogma. We should be treating animals with respect. Not abusing or eating or wearing or testing etc. The rest... whatever. I've never liked dogma, not religious dogma and not dogma that, in the end, a person or persons simply came up with. For the most part, I'm vegan, and whether anyone like it or not, that's generally how I will describe myself. But I live in a non-vegan world, so some of my opinions will likely not match those of the fundamentalists.
Morality is for the most part subjective and ethics are open to change over time.

In general I disagree with zoos. But whilst we live in a non-vegan world, they can be a source of education. No, I don't particularly want to fund them, but it can be a great learning exercise for kids if done correctly.

And I do agree that we need to keep endangered species alive. With any luck in the future, mankind will see the error of its ways and if these animals have vanished from the wild, then that's it...they are gone.
If we can draw back from all the land we use for "livestock", go through a re-wilding process then maybe, just maybe we can bring some creatures back from the brink of extinction.

Just to clarify, you agree with @shyvas on the ethics but disagree with enforcing it on a non vegan world?

 

[g0rph]

Just to clarify, you agree with @shyvas on the ethics but disagree with enforcing it on a non vegan world?

Essentially, yes...up to a point.
I disagree with Zoos for profit, of course.
But I do think there is a case for protection of endangered species.

i.e.
Aquariums with dolphins and Orcas...totally unacceptable.
Bringing in non-endangered species for people to gawk at, for profit...unacceptable.
But sanctuary type places that take in rescues and charge for entry in order to keep them running (i.e. Non-profit) ...A positive thing.
And also, "zoos" that take in (only) endangered species to keep them from going extinct (and of course with plenty of room to run around)...positive.

Bad zoos (lions in cages etc) should absolutely close down.
But the animals should be re-housed...see sanctuary type places above.

I take issue with Shyvas' declaration..."Anyone, that goes to a place where an animal is being held prisoner cannot say that they are a vegan."
This far too absolute. Nothing in life is black or white (other than #000000 and #FFFFFF)

I don't choose to go to zoos anymore. But I do not know anyone IRL who is vegan.
If a friend asked me to look after their kids on holiday and they wanted to go to the zoo nearby (definitely one of the better ones), then I'd go. And I would try my best to explain why it isn't really fair on the animals...

By the way - It is this one...

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g1152663-d1748981-Reviews-Kolmarden_Zoo-Kolmarden_Ostergotland_County.html

 

[fakei]

....

 

[fakei]

Essentially, yes...up to a point.
I disagree with Zoos for profit, of course.
But I do think there is a case for protection of endangered species.

i.e.
Aquariums with dolphins and Orcas...totally unacceptable.
Bringing in non-endangered species for people to gawk at, for profit...unacceptable.
But sanctuary type places that take in rescues and charge for entry in order to keep them running (i.e. Non-profit) ...A positive thing.
And also, "zoos" that take in (only) endangered species to keep them from going extinct (and of course with plenty of room to run around)...positive.

Bad zoos (lions in cages etc) should absolutely close down.
But the animals should be re-housed...see sanctuary type places above.

I take issue with Shyvas' declaration..."Anyone, that goes to a place where an animal is being held prisoner cannot say that they are a vegan."
This far too absolute. Nothing in life is black or white (other than #000000 and #FFFFFF)

I don't choose to go to zoos anymore. But I do not know anyone IRL who is vegan.
If a friend asked me to look after their kids on holiday and they wanted to go to the zoo nearby (definitely one of the better ones), then I'd go. And I would try my best to explain why it isn't really fair on the animals...

By the way - It is this one...

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g1152663-d1748981-Reviews-Kolmarden_Zoo-Kolmarden_Ostergotland_County.html

Depends on the perspective one looks at the issue. To some extension you both have a point.

You, that it's not feasible to enforce vegan principles before they are universally accepted, at @shyvas, that there are elements in keeping animals in custody that definitely conflict with vegan principles.

One is if the animal has to be fed with other animals. It makes no sense that a person who quits consuming animal products for ethical reasons will be responsible for killing animals to feed another animal.

Another is the person may have to decide over the animal's life and kill the animal, like in situations of disease.

Others could be added depending on the situation.

 

[Graeme M]

This is so commonly the case that maybe they don't consider the possibility that sometimes the animals might actually benefit.

Perhaps so, though I think the more strict vegans/animal rights (VAR) advocates are very much opposed to any animal "use"/ownership. In reality, a lot of VAR ethics are more about us than other animals, because animals do not care whether we own them or use them or imprison them. All they really care about, as I said, is not being made to suffer. So in some cases where the wellbeing and future success of an animal and species is improved by our intervention, such as good zoos, I think that it's pointless imposing a particular moral stance if it turns out to be counter-productive.

Veganism has to be amenable to real world considerations, rather than falling victim to some kind of unrealistic and even harmful perfectionism.

 

[deadknight]

You guys have already written so many good thoughts that I have very little to add.

IMHO, as long as a zoo or an aquarium functions as a sanctuary, it's okay.

Gerald Durrell's idea of a zoo - to preserve endangered species and taking care of the animals - is something I like very much. Have you guys read Menagerie Manor? I found it really thought-provoking, it's much more than "just the usual Durrell stuff with funny animal stories".

 

[g0rph]

Depends on the perspective one looks at the issue. To some extension you both have a point.

You, that it's not feasible to enforce vegan principles before they are universally accepted, at @shyvas, that there are elements in keeping animals in custody that definitely conflict with vegan principles.

Indeed.

One is if the animal has to be fed with other animals. It makes no sense that a person who quits consuming animal products for ethical reasons will be responsible for killing animals to feed another animal.

Short term I would take a utilitarian view on this. It might sound heartless, but I would rather see tigers survive as various species than them not eat.
Medium to long term we have bio-meat. There is no reason that could not be used to feed the animals.
It's humanity that have caused the habitat loss and vast reduction in numbers of tigers, lions, and other carnivore animals. It's up to us to keep them from the brink before we can finally come to our senses.

Another is the person may have to decide over the animal's life and kill the animal, like in situations of disease.

Others could be added depending on the situation.

We should be looking at medical solutions rather than quick culling solutions. But until we do, then culling might be the only way to stop spread of disease.
But medical solutions need a public will as they would cost a fortune.

But it would be interesting to see the reaction if we had culled human covid victims. I wonder if there would have been less deaths overall? Interesting thought experiment maybe?

 

[fakei]

Indeed.


Short term I would take a utilitarian view on this. It might sound heartless, but I would rather see tigers survive as various species than them not eat.
Medium to long term we have bio-meat. There is no reason that could not be used to feed the animals.
It's humanity that have caused the habitat loss and vast reduction in numbers of tigers, lions, and other carnivore animals. It's up to us to keep them from the brink before we can finally come to our senses.

But that's already outside of and against vegan principles, and if we lived in a vegan world it would be impossible to find anyone willing to kill the animals to feed the tiger. The extinction of tigers does not bring suffering to the tigers but it brings moral suffering to humans who feel responsible and don't like to see the world change.

Conservationism and veganism are not necessarily compatible, like killing animals from non indigenous species who are changing the local environment where they were introduced by humans.

We should be looking at medical solutions rather than quick culling solutions. But until we do, then culling might be the only way to stop spread of disease.
But medical solutions need a public will as they would cost a fortune.

This reminds Brian Mays work trying to prevent the culling of badgers in the UK, although it's a more complex issue and the culling is not for conservationism but for the sake of the meat industry.

 

[g0rph]

But that's already outside of and against vegan principles, and if we lived in a vegan world it would be impossible to find anyone willing to kill the animals to feed the tiger.

How so?
Only drones live 100% by dogmatic rules.
It's humans that have created the problem. (Less than 6000 wild tigers left - because 8 billion humans can't live with them)
It's humans that need to fix it at some point. If that means allowing the tigers to eat non-endangered animals, so be it.

Conservationism and veganism are not necessarily compatible, like killing animals from non indigenous species who are changing the local environment where they were introduced by humans.

Changing is okay. Destroying less so. I have no issue with removal of invasive species. Preferably in a non-violent way.
The grey area is of course culling of herbivores, usually by hunters.
Don't do it, and the ecosystem is potentially destroyed.
But it's the killing of natural predators by humans that caused the problem in the first place.
But again, people and wild carnivores don't mix well.
Here in Sweden there are less than 300 wolves and many see that as too many (in a large country with 10.5 million homo-sapiens and almost 70% forest coverage. Utter madness.)

This reminds Brian Mays work trying to prevent the culling of badgers in the UK, although it's a more complex issue and the culling is not for conservationism but for the sake of the meat industry.

The badger culling is indeed a farce. The drive behind it is money and it makes no apparent difference to bTB in cattle anyway.

 

[fakei]

How so?
Only drones live 100% by dogmatic rules.
It's humans that have created the problem. (Less than 6000 wild tigers left - because 8 billion humans can't live with them)
It's humans that need to fix it at some point. If that means allowing the tigers to eat non-endangered animals, so be it.

Principles tend to be black and white, the world of senses is not, so it's not always possible to apply them with a ruler and a square.

Moving from the topic a bit to give an example, a person may have acquired a predator pet before adhering to the principles of not killing and not choosing an animal over the other, in this case she will be confronted with the dilemma of either abandoning or killing the pet or keep feeding him, both of which are contrary to the mentioned principles. It doesn't change the fact that dealing with the grey in the best way possible and sticking to the principles from then on it's still better.

Maybe the solution is for humans to act on themselves. And veganism looks like a big step in that direction since there would not be hunting, there would be more land available, and no culling for cattle preservation. And sticking to the principles, when they are correct, is the way to achieve results, dealing with the greys when necessary, otherwise, constantly changing the game plan, nothing is achieved.

Changing is okay. Destroying less so. I have no issue with removal of invasive species. Preferably in a non-violent way.
The grey area is of course culling of herbivores, usually by hunters.
Don't do it, and the ecosystem is potentially destroyed.

But it's the killing of natural predators by humans that caused the problem in the first place.
But again, people and wild carnivores don't mix well.
Here in Sweden there are less than 300 wolves and many see that as too many (in a large country with 10.5 million homo-sapiens and almost 70% forest coverage. Utter madness.)

There have been mass extinctions before humans and non indigenous species introduced by natural causes. Nature and the ecosystem are able to regenerate, maybe not fast enough for mankind, but that's really our problem, so, maybe we should stop intervening and let nature do its job, because as the saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".


Here in Portugal there are, estimated, 300 hundred wolves and 291 Lynxes and 5 or 6 million dogs and cats contributing to environmental problems, to overloaded animal shelters and abandoned animal and even killing of children, and all under the auspices of "animal lovers".

 

[g0rph]

Moving from the topic a bit to give an example, a person may have acquired a predator pet before adhering to the principles of not killing and not choosing an animal over the other, in this case she will be confronted with the dilemma of either abandoning or killing the pet or keep feeding him, both of which are contrary to the mentioned principles. It doesn't change the fact that dealing with the grey in the best way possible and sticking to the principles from then on it's still better.

There is already perfectly healthy vegan cat food.

There have been mass extinctions before humans and non indigenous species introduced by natural causes. Nature and the ecosystem are able to regenerate, maybe not fast enough for mankind, but that's really our problem, so, maybe we should stop intervening and let nature do its job, because as the saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right".

Possibly, but humans are causing these extinctions.
Maybe we should let nature do its job...and stop producing vaccines, antibiotics and cures for human diseases....The world would be a lot greener and healthier...
(I am not actually advocating this, but without us, most of the extinctions that have happened in our lifetimes would not have occurred.)
Conversely, I believe that Giant Pandas would probably be extinct but for humans...and they, in all honesty, should be. They are cute as hell but a bit evolutionary weak (diet wise).

Here in Portugal there are, estimated, 300 hundred wolves and 291 Lynxes and 5 or 6 million dogs and cats contributing to environmental problems, to overloaded animal shelters and abandoned animal and even killing of children, and all under the auspices of "animal lovers".

And there is the problem.
10.5 million humans
5 or 6 million dogs and cats
300 wolves
291 Lynx.

The problem is definitely not the (non-human) predators

 

[g0rph]

You guys have already written so many good thoughts that I have very little to add.

IMHO, as long as a zoo or an aquarium functions as a sanctuary, it's okay.

Gerald Durrell's idea of a zoo - to preserve endangered species and taking care of the animals - is something I like very much. Have you guys read Menagerie Manor? I found it really thought-provoking, it's much more than "just the usual Durrell stuff with funny animal stories".

You reminded me of a book I read as a child...and enjoyed immensely... "My Family and Other Animals".
Must grab a copy.

By the way, off-topic , if no-one has read it, I encourage everyone to read "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull" by Richard Bach. It only takes about 30 mins but is very life-affirming..

 

[fakei]

There is already perfectly healthy vegan cat food.

The example was to show principles can not always be applied absolutely in the world of senses, they can however be in those situations used as guidelines to choose the less of two evils.

There are other predators besides cats and there are other reasons not to have cats, including that pellets don't look that healthy.

Possibly, but humans are causing these extinctions.

Then lets stop causing instead of patching and veganism is a great step in that direction.

Maybe we should let nature do its job...and stop producing vaccines, antibiotics and cures for human diseases....The world would be a lot greener and healthier...

Besides diet and lifestyle there is also birth control, I obviously don't agree with abortion, this would be killing too, but there are contraceptive methods and surgeries and, of course, abstinence which is probably the loftiest in spiritual terms.

And there is the problem.
10.5 million humans
5 or 6 million dogs and cats
300 wolves
291 Lynx.

The problem is definitely not the (non-human) predators

The problem is in animal ownership. I mentioned "animal lovers" because when dogs like pit-bulls kill children or other animals and someone calls for prohibition of ownerships of these animals by the general population these folks immediatly argue no way because the owners are to blame not the animals. The problem is the owners are to blame because they own the animals, so the problem cannot be solved.

 

[g0rph]

The example was to show principles can not always be applied absolutely in the world of senses, they can however be in those situations used as guidelines to choose the less of two evils.

There are other predators besides cats and there are other reasons not to have cats, including that pellets don't look that healthy.

They are in fact very healthy. More so than randomly eating food. Especially formulated kibble provides all the nutrients an animal needs

Then lets stop causing instead of patching and veganism is a great step in that direction.

It would be a great step if we could all agree.
Unfortunately we have to get from A to B and that will take a long time...

Besides diet and lifestyle there is also birth control, I obviously don't agree with abortion, this would be killing too, but there are contraceptive methods and surgeries and, of course, abstinence which is probably the loftiest in spiritual terms.

Abortion is not killing a sentient being. It is IMO no worse than killing a plant.
Birth control or even anti-natalism is not a solution as we do need younger people all the time otherwise society would collapse.

The problem is in animal ownership. I mentioned "animal lovers" because when dogs like pit-bulls kill children or other animals and someone calls for prohibition of ownerships of these animals by the general population these folks immediatly argue no way because the owners are to blame not the animals. The problem is the owners are to blame because they own the animals, so the problem cannot be solved.

I don't see animal "ownership" or rather "adoption" as the problem. I see the problem mainly in terms of human numbers alongside animal agriculture.
If we remove animal agriculture we would have more than enough room, even for an expanded population AND including domestic adopted animals.

But we need vast amounts of rewilding, worldwide. And to leave vast areas alone, uninhabited by people.

Numbers of mammals in the world by biomass...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/biomass-of-mammals/

DOMESTICATED / LIVESTOCK
Cattle 416 Million Tonnes.
Buffalo 68 Mt
Sheep 39 Mt
Pigs 38 Mt
Goats 32 Mt
Dogs 31 Mt
Horses 16 Mt
Camels 9Mt
Donkeys 8 Mt
Cats 2 Mt
Other 1 Mt



Humans 394 Million Tonnes

So dogs and cats make up 33 of 651 Million Tonnes of domestic animals, and 394 Mt of humans.

WILD MAMMALS
Marine animals - 40Mt
Wild land mammals - 24 Mt



Summary....

Livestock make up 62% of the world’s mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%.​

This is the world homo-sapiens have created.....

 

[fakei]

They are in fact very healthy. More so than randomly eating food. Especially formulated kibble provides all the nutrients an animal needs

Actually a dentist once told me there was a surge in dog teeth problems due to pellets and processed food.

Also, having all the vitamins and minerals doesn't mean it is healthy and animals can't complain like humans or say what they feel.

It would be a great step if we could all agree.
Unfortunately we have to get from A to B and that will take a long time...

Actually it may never happen for mankind or the world, that's why the good we do we do it really to ourselves, because it's our conscience the only sure beneficiary.

Abortion is not killing a sentient being. It is IMO no worse than killing a plant.

Depends on the stage of development, it is killing a living creature, and taking a human life, that's enough.

Birth control or even anti-natalism is not a solution as we do need younger people all the time otherwise society would collapse.

You say human numbers are a problem and birth control is not the solution, then we don't need to worry since there is no solution, I assume.

I don't see animal "ownership" or rather "adoption" as the problem. I see the problem mainly in terms of human numbers alongside animal agriculture.
If we remove animal agriculture we would have more than enough room, even for an expanded population AND including domestic adopted animals.

But we need vast amounts of rewilding, worldwide. And to leave vast areas alone, uninhabited by people.

Numbers of mammals in the world by biomass...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/biomass-of-mammals/

DOMESTICATED / LIVESTOCK
Cattle 416 Million Tonnes.
Buffalo 68 Mt
Sheep 39 Mt
Pigs 38 Mt
Goats 32 Mt
Dogs 31 Mt
Horses 16 Mt
Camels 9Mt
Donkeys 8 Mt
Cats 2 Mt
Other 1 Mt



Humans 394 Million Tonnes

So dogs and cats make up 33 of 651 Million Tonnes of domestic animals, and 394 Mt of humans.

WILD MAMMALS
Marine animals - 40Mt
Wild land mammals - 24 Mt



Summary....

Livestock make up 62% of the world’s mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%.​

This is the world homo-sapiens have created.....

There was a study some years ago showing production of food for pets was having a relevant environmental impact, it was recommended that people would favour smaller pets.

 

[g0rph]

Actually a dentist once told me there was a surge in dog teeth problems due to pellets and processed food.

Also, having all the vitamins and minerals doesn't mean it is healthy and animals can't complain like humans or say what they feel.

Open to debate then I guess. Either way it's viable.

Actually it may never happen for mankind or the world, that's why the good we do we do it really to ourselves, because it's our conscience the only sure beneficiary.

No, it might not.

Depends on the stage of development, it is killing a living creature, and taking a human life, that's enough.

Human life begins at birth, so no, it is not taking a human life by any metric. I value the life and choice of a living, breathing person than I do of a lump of cells that *might* become a human.
A fetus is a "living creature" in the same way a mushroom is.

You say human numbers are a problem and birth control is not the solution, then we don't need to worry since there is no solution, I assume.

Yes, the solution is to stop animal ag.

There was a study some years ago showing production of food for pets was having a relevant environmental impact, it was recommended that people would favour smaller pets.

Probably sensible.
But if you looked at my numbers, dogs and cats make up a tiny portion of the mammal biomass. 60 odd percent is animals we breed to kill. And they eat food that we grow too... 80% of the soy grown in the Amazon is fed to cows...