Are aquariums/zoos ethically defensible?
yesthey are coolwhat is the ethical problem even, some animal rights thing?animals have rights in proportion to their ability to do cool thingsthe fish in the exhibit are privileged
Yes, because they are helping to preserve many living animals which are threatened or endangered in the wild
>>16965372I think the biggest way this argument tends to play out is "value provided by knowledge and awareness of specific animals, and the funding raised by aquariums to help them (in the wild)" vs "negative value provided of the quality of life of fish 'meant to have larger natural ranges' than is realistically capable of being provided by an aquarium, and the mis-allocation of funds in maintaining the aquarium(s) vs directly spending it on (further) supporting wild animal populations" in some flavour or another. Please provide other points in favour of/against the point outside of this scope, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.I'm personally in favour in this framework, so I'm curious what other anons have to say.
>>16965372They don't normally live in shallow water and have shortened life spans in aquariums.
>>16965372If you eat meat or use animal products you can't really morally oppose aquariums since growing animals just to kill them is worse than growing animals to look at them. Even if you don't your energy use if you are reading this is almost certainly doing more harm to animals than a zoo or an aquarium would. If you do then you probably shouldn't have a problem with them either. Animals are for us to do with as we please, unusual cruelty should be avoided on principle but aquariums/zoos offer a service for which there's no realistic replacement. If you have the choice between two venues then pick the one with better facilities though.
technically nowe backtrack ethical lines because we like to think enviroment is open season and that we can't stop people from exploiting it, which is already giving too much agency to people and nothing to animalsif we are really considering the impact of having animals in zoos as a purely moral question we have to go back and ask by what right do we have to exploit the enviroment in such a way that necesitate the need to extract endangered animal in the first placeso it was never about ethics but how much we ground we are willing to give for the veil of care, and frankly it's abysmal, in a more just society, animals will get majority of earth's land and we would strictly enforce interaction with them, but since we believe we have final say now, technically anything is ethical as it is our framework to decide
>>16965372You see that group of yellow fish right in front of the whale shark's mouth? They grew too large so the Georgia Aquarium killed them.
>>16965372Yeah, up until really large mammals in enclosures that are not ideal for them.
>>16965433Once had a conversation with the director of the Georgia Aquarium about the ethics of it. His view was that animals have "group rights" and "individual rights". Zoos and aquariums promote group rights by educating the public, caring for animals that can't live in the wild, and producing offspring that can be used to repopulate declining wild populations. That is balanced against individual rights, which vary by species. A clown fish in a large enclosure like the Georgia Aquarium has no concept of not being in its natural habitat. Its individual rights aren't being infringed upon through suffering. But things get more complicated when you get to things like the whale shark that normally would have a large range over which to swim or highly intelligent animals like beluga whales and dolphins, both of which are aware that they're being held in captivity.
>>16965610Larger than the shark?
>>16966031No, just not cute little fish anymore. Even in OP's photo they're starting to get larger than what the aquarium wanted. When it first opened, it was probably two dozen of the little yellow fish swimming in a cloud in front of the whale sharks. It was an unexpected crowd favorite. As they grew, there were too many of them for the small number of whale sharks, so most of them were culled. In the wild, predation, disease, and lack of resources would have kept their numbers in check. I haven't had inside info in a long time but I think they didn't simply get into a cycle of adding new juvenile fish while killing the older ones, they just culled as necessary and didn't replaced them. IIRC, in nature, those fish help keep the whale sharks free of parasites, which is a lesser problem in a controlled aquarium.
>>16966014I like that last point, I don't think it's entirely fair to conflate aquariums directly for that reason. The small aquarium with a few river species in a proper enclosure can't be compared with large scale ocean containers because of the scale of individual rights being infringed/respected. The better question to ask would be more along the lines of "Which fish are and are not ethically defensible to hold in captivity for the sake of awareness of their species as a whole?"
>>16965372Animals in aquariums/zoos have>Longer and healthier lifespans>Get treated for injuries & diseases>Have large comfortable spaces to live in>Sometimes develop bonds for the zookeepersThere still are valid arguments against aquariums/zoos, but talking about the wild like it's the Garden of Eden isn't a valid argument. There is a reason why humans created civilization on every continent thousands of years ago.
>>16965372For science? Yes.For entertainment? No./thread
>>16965455>Animals are for us to do with as we pleaseSoulless bugman identified
No. They exist so goyim can gawk at caged animals. Any talk about research or preservation is all made up after the fact.
>>16965372in theory, yes, as long as the animals have enough space and their needs metin practice, though, animals rarely have enough space
Animals that are kept in shitty conditions in zoos/aquariums are visibly "depressed" and waste away or die of stress. Those that don't have a pretty good life, clearly, so I don't see what the ethical angle would be.
>>16965372I just went to the newport aquarium a couple weeks ago. it was fine, leave them alone
>>16966771I like the idea that all such public spaces have dual uses. Glass containers that hold animals as a secondary display when they're not being used / studied for science. But there are simply too many where it's simply about money.
>>16965372yes, fuck fishesthey belong to us for our nutrition and entertainmentthis planet is human property and we decide what to do with it
>>16970477What about the life on Europa?
The real question: Is allowing wilderness to still exist ethical.
>>16965372Yes
>>16970477>>16966812
>>16966812>>16973103Normal people are largely indifferent to animal rights, chinese people are actively sadistic towards animals. Chinese will make animals suffer on purpose specifically because they want them to suffer. It's not the same.
>>16965372I'll have you know those fish are fed, clothed, and go to school!
>>16973671and I love this little fisheh like you wouldn't believe
>>16973110I wonder what causes their utter lack of empathy and grace
>>16965406Evil kike.
>>16965372with bulletproof glass and laser sharks maybe
>>16965372Yes. If we don't have aquariums/zoos, then we're not going to like animals, and we won't care if we destroy their environment. Animal Rights Fags are missing the forest for the trees.They want to protect *these* animals that are in aquariums/zoos, because they think that being in captivity is worse than being eaten alive or starving to death. They're willing to potentially sacrifice every animal, so *these* ones can be free.We need some animals to live in captivity, so we all can appreciate animals, and want to have animals live.
>>16965372No less than society.
>>16973740Pressure selection for these traits through war and mass killings/famine for millennia + the cultural revolution
>>16965372It is an important part of preservation and science.Most fish are not sentient enough for it to pose any ethical problem.It does become a problem for intelligent species and marine mammals.
Depends on the animal, I think. At the risk of anthropomorphising (but who cares?) - if you look at the lion exhibit then they're just chilling in the sun all day, waiting for staff to feed them, looking content as hell. Look over at the hyena exhibit and you'll see them frantically pacing back and forth, looking for a way out. They're obviously not having a good time. Size has relatively little to do with it. Whale sharks seem to do fine. Way smaller sharks just give up and die.
>>16974626Yeah I agree with this. Some animals will literally develop mental illnesses and severe behavioral issues in captivity. It can be clearly observed that they are stressed and unhappy when denied certain urges (run, play, exploration etc.).Meanwhile I really don't see any reason to assume that a huge snake gives a single fuck about sitting in a relatively small space of optimal humidity forever as long as those mice keep miraculously popping up for them to snack on.
>>16965372yes
>atheist p-zombie board defends obvious animal crueltyWhat else is new?
>>16974604>Yes. If we don't have aquariums/zoos, then we're not going to like animals, and we won't care if we destroy their environment. Nice set of counterfactuals. Sapient human beings don't need anything more than a garden to realize the innumerable complexity and diversity of life that exists around them at any given moment.>They want to protect *these* animals that are in aquariums/zoos, because they think that being in captivity is worse than being eaten alive or starving to death. Decoupling animals from the environments they're adapted to and subjecting them to unfamiliar external stressors to live out the rest of their days in is absolutely evil.>They're willing to potentially sacrifice every animal, so *these* ones can be free.Humans are doing this with or without zoos. Humans casually cause the extinction of thousands of bird species in the span of only a few decades with or without zoos. There are no industrial giant that has been dismayed by the existence of zoos. >We need some animals to live in captivity, so we all can appreciate animals, and want to have animals live.No one is falling for this.
>>16965372So long as the animals are well treated and given plenty of space, I have no problem with zoos and aquariums, they are an incredible educational and entertainment source.
>>16975147You can't give them plenty of space though.
>>16966077sorta doubt.Why wouldn't they just release them into the wild vs killing them?
What now?
>>16965372No great white sharks, those always end up dying.
>>16975814That depends heavily on the particular animal.
>>16975861Atlanta is nowhere near the natural habitat of those fish around Taiwan and they're not in any way endangered. Why would the aquarium spend part of their limited funds on having them transported to their natural habitat when they could simply kill them there on-site and be done with it? It's like asking why someone bored with their home aquarium doesn't travel to the Amazon to release their neon tetras back into the wild.
