Background Information
There is proof of zoos and petting zoos dating back to 3500 BC in ancient Egypt. Numerous Roman emperors maintained their private zoos. These animals in captivity were occasionally employed for research. Still, for the majority of their lifespans, they were just kept for amusement in the arena, where they were always put to terrible deaths. Throughout the evolution of zoos, some have even attempted to use “human zoos” to highlight the alleged inferiority of non-Western civilizations and to imply the supremacy of Western civilization. Many European nations have had a large number of “human zoos,” which attempted to illustrate the supremacy of Western society over that of previous colonies by portraying the archaic behaviors of Black people (Chikha and Arnaut 662). “Human zoos” are one of the European most despicable secrets. We need to get around the fact that our history must be taken into consideration while attempting to determine whether or not zoos should be outlawed—the debate on whether the zoos should be closed and the opposing parties have always conflicted. The supporters of its closure argue on the premises of ethical concerns, conservational challenges, and the presence of educational alternatives with the advancement of technology. However, the opposing parties argue on survival plans for some species, educational and recreational values, and economic contribution. These arguments will be viewed in detail in the divisions that follow:
Reasons Supporting the Zoo Nullification
Confining animals in captivity for human entertainment is criticized by people who are activists for animals. The restricted movements and stress induced by being caged can result in low-quality life for animals in zoos. Despite their admirable goals, critics, environmentalists, and most animal rights advocates believe zoos should be outlawed (Citation). They contend that zoos are fundamentally unethical and exist only to amuse people at the cost of the wildlife. Moreover, they contend that more than public education provided by zoos is needed to support keeping confined animals. Since zoo visitors are well-versed in ecology before visiting, research is frequently used to support the claim that zoos teach the public that “there was no overall change in awareness of ecological ideas seen.” People should consider whether the pleasure offered by zoos—particularly animal exhibitions and related events—truly justifies the cost that the creatures present bear to get it.
Additionally, allowing the existence of zoos raises ethical concerns about the act. Should people have learned from the disgraceful past of “human zoos”? A century ago, it was commonplace for people to tolerate others being displayed in “human zoos,” which is vehemently opposed today. Who knows how future generations would view the current animal zoos when they look back one hundred years? Zoos are unquestionably dubious from an ethical standpoint (Citation). Zoos are a common source of amusement for families, yet connecting relaxation and enjoyment to the thought of captive animals might harm the kids’ delicate psychology and implicate their development. One could view zoos as a sadistic pastime. A zoo might provide educational benefits, but holding animals in confinement presents a moral problem. Certain animals do better in captivity than others, such as the typical house cat. Others that live in captivity, such as orcas, perform exceptionally poorly. While orcas in their natural environment can live as long as one hundred years, the standard age of an orca kept in captivity is under thirty years, while for an adult male orca, it dwindles to seventeen years. This is a compelling case for many people to oppose zoos.
Moreover, zoos are infringing the natural course of animal’s health. Zoos can harm the animals’ physical well-being, contingent upon the circumstances. Even in less industrialized and wealthy nations, animals frequently have to survive in inadequate environments, and several problems with animal welfare are reported daily. Furthermore, most animals on display at zoos are untamed exotic creatures who require plenty of room by nature and may even alter their surroundings over time. These creatures cannot roam as freely as they might in the constricted spaces of zoos, which eventually causes health problems.
Moreover, zoo animal abuse is still a very prevalent occurrence. Animal maltreatment committed by zoo employees and tourists is a persistent problem (Arcari 3). The media reports on several of them every week, but the vast majority remain unreported, and those who do them rarely get prosecuted or penalized. Many zoos are deceiving the public into believing they have strict animal care guidelines when, in reality, they do not.
Reasons against the Zoo Nullification
Zoos worldwide have taken up the task of preserving threatened animals since ecological conservation became a topic of public concern in the early 1970s. Zoos cannot be the same as the inhumane animal menageries of bygone eras. Although they are primarily interested in preserving and safeguarding wildlife and their natural surroundings, they also wish to entertain. In addition to offering a haven for threatened and endangered species, they support scientific and awareness-building efforts about wildlife (Citation). Zoos thus serve to inform the public concerning wildlife and aid in the preservation of several species. Many species would become extinct if zoos were prohibited. Narwhals are a prime illustration.
Education is undoubtedly one of the benefits of zoos. In metropolitan areas, many kids and adults only see wildlife on Television or the internet. Zoos allow them to reflect on actual creatures (Godinez and Fernandez 2). In the real world, they are presented with the opportunity to interact with them and hear their sounds. This is a far richer and more lifelike experience than what one can get from a screen. Zoos help people of all ages gain compassion for animals. Furthermore, seeing the creatures does not require people to drive to far-off locations, which is good for the environment. In the end, zoos offer an inexpensive way to view (strange) animals, granting everyone the same opportunity to get up close and personal with wildlife and discover the wonders of nature.
The last benefit of zoos is their economic significance. Zoos are vital to the global economy, particularly in less developed regions where they provide a significant portion of the revenue for many local people. Zoos accomplish more than merely give animals a place to live. They are a location that generates employment, invites tourists, and may even serve as a hub for local economies (Citation). If zoos were outlawed, these populations would have to find alternative forms of income. In the United States alone, there were 27,267 workers in the zoos and aquariums sector as of 2022. Consider the sheer number of employment they generate globally.
Mediation
However, given both sides of the argument, how much the view supporting the retention of zoos is enticing, they can be perceived as self-centered. The ethical considerations and the rights concerning the safety and freedom of animals should be enough to end zoos. Because they are stripped of numerous amenities that are significant to them, animals kept in confinement experience loneliness and boredom. Numerous individuals have “zoochosis,” a mental disorder marked by compulsive and repetitive actions such as frequent grooming, self-harm, and bowel movements. Such behavior may not only be detrimental to animals but to young kids who perceive those in that manner might experience psychological trauma. Animal behaviorists frequently witness zoo animals experiencing issues not present in the untamed, such as depressive disorders in gibbons and spotted leopards and nervousness in giraffes. Smaller boundaries, altered food and activity regimens, and the presence of objects uncommon in the wild—like medical examinations and humans carrying cameras—all contribute to the problems faced by the animals. Even housing companion animals like llamas and alpacas in a small space or cage can be quite upsetting for them. As they get agitated more often in zoos than when they remain alone within the wild, alpacas and llamas tend to spit more, which is why they disband the zoos.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the zoo concept has dyed the psychology of animals and humans to the feeling of captivity, and it is high time people disband the practice. The presence of highly advanced technology with virtual reality is enough to simulate the experience people might get from zoo animals. The government should protect the existence of animals from their natural environment rather than isolating them from wild nature and caging them for personal amusement and financial gain. Moreover, sightseeing in their natural setting gives people an experience of the zoos being set apart. Animals are living beings, and they have their rights, too.
Works Cited
Arcari, Paula. “Slow Violence against Animals: Unseen Spectacles in Racing and at Zoos.” Geoforum, vol. 144, Aug. 2023, p. 103820, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103820.
Godinez, Andrea M., and Eduardo J. Fernandez. “What Is the Zoo Experience? How Zoos Impact a Visitor’s Behaviors, Perceptions, and Conservation Efforts.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, no. 10, July 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01746.
write