Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn’t useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren’t calloused assholes).
Yes I’m well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There’s more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.
Why not save animals from unsafe/illegal conditions and provide enrichment, without turning the animals into an attraction?
Because people wouldn’t support spending their taxes on it without making them aware of the value. Which is done by educating them.
Because the attraction rallies support for preserving and protecting their natural habitat. Zoos act as promotional centers for conservation.
But they aren’t necessary for conservation. Conservation can occur without zoos.
I love when people like you suddenly come up with a hot take that absolutely no one has ever thought through ever in the past hundreds of years.
Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.
So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?
Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn’t useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren’t calloused assholes).
To me your view seems woefully ignorant, possibly even delusional:
https://northeastwildlife.org/why-do-zoo-animals-pace-back-and-forth/
Yes I’m well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There’s more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.
But not eliminated.
i too can come up with technically true statements that are completely useless