The implication here is that it would be impossible to fund conservation without zoos. As a counter argument: we could just do it. Increase taxes by the amount people spend in zoos and spend that on conservation. The only argument in favour of the zoo over that other approach is that people want to look at animals in cages.
Yes, we could do that, but what would be the benefit? I'm saying that whether we want nature conserved and whether we want them to be in cages for us to look at are entirely separate issues that should be evaluated separately. The best argument in favour of zoos is assuming that the people who want to look at dancing bears would be sufficiently enraged by their absence that they would decide to condemn the whole of nature in not doing conservation.
As for why I think we could do it, the answer is because we obviously can. The world become a much worse place once you realise the many things of which humanity is capable, yet which we choose not to do.
I suggest to you that if you try to make that happen, you'll find that in fact you can't. Not everything you can imagine people doing is something that it's actually possible to make them do.
This logic is at the root of almost everyone who has been complicit in evil through history. It would once have been said about the abolition of slavery, gay rights, etc. It is a lazy attitude that's entirely self-justifying. Change is often opposed primarily by the great mass of people who use this same logic, in spite of them recognising that the change would be good.
Comments
The implication here is that it would be impossible to fund conservation without zoos. As a counter argument: we could just do it. Increase taxes by the amount people spend in zoos and spend that on conservation. The only argument in favour of the zoo over that other approach is that people want to look at animals in cages.
Why do you think we could do that?
I say we could just increase taxes by $5,000 per person per year and spend it on breeding and releasing mosquitoes in Los Angeles.
Yes, we could do that, but what would be the benefit? I'm saying that whether we want nature conserved and whether we want them to be in cages for us to look at are entirely separate issues that should be evaluated separately. The best argument in favour of zoos is assuming that the people who want to look at dancing bears would be sufficiently enraged by their absence that they would decide to condemn the whole of nature in not doing conservation.
As for why I think we could do it, the answer is because we obviously can. The world become a much worse place once you realise the many things of which humanity is capable, yet which we choose not to do.
I suggest to you that if you try to make that happen, you'll find that in fact you can't. Not everything you can imagine people doing is something that it's actually possible to make them do.
This logic is at the root of almost everyone who has been complicit in evil through history. It would once have been said about the abolition of slavery, gay rights, etc. It is a lazy attitude that's entirely self-justifying. Change is often opposed primarily by the great mass of people who use this same logic, in spite of them recognising that the change would be good.