Chances are you have an opinion on zoos. You might think that there is no such thing as a good zoo, that they're basically amusement parks and that keeping animals in captivity is inhumane, or you might think that zoos inspire people, especially children, to greater compassion toward animals, that zoos provide education about animals and spark concern for the environment, or your opinion might fall somewhere between these two views. In any case, the controversy around zoos boils down to two issues. The first has to do with the practice of keeping animals in captivity, the second has to do with whether zoos deliver on the promises they make to justify their existence. The concept of captivity implies more than just confinement within a physical space. It also refers to a state of being, whether it involves people or animals. The captive obviously depends on the captor. Second, the captor benefits from the relationship at the expense of the captive. We can see this very clearly in examples of animals confined in zoos. They depend on human beings for every aspect of their care. The relationship between humans and captive animals is based on power, and ours over them. We exercise that power through the gaze or through looking at them whenever we decide we want to. They can't escape our gaze. In fact, if we go to a zoo and a particular animal isn't visible for some reason, we feel cheated, as if the animals should always be available to us whenever we arrive. In some zoos, some animals are forced to perform for, be fed by, or otherwise interact with people. This is particularly the case for captive marine mammals in aquariums. When we consider the cost of captivity for the animals, it's important to distinguish between surviving and thriving. While no species thrives in captivity as it would in nature, some species can do fairly well if the conditions meet their needs and allow them to function normally. But the majority of species barely survive in captivity, much less thrive, because their needs don't even come close to being met. In addition, some species have a level of intelligence and self-awareness to grasp the wrongness of their circumstances. Here we're talking about elephants, the great apes, which include gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangutans, and cetaceans, which include dolphins and whales. The neuroscientist, Lori Marino, suggests that we can consider the impact of captivity on these groups of animals along four dimensions. Captivity has physiological impact through limiting movement, for example, which affects body condition. In zoos, species that often cover miles of land or water have restricted areas in which to move, in even the largest habitats. A sedentary lifestyle can result in a number of physical problems for animals as it can for humans. Captivity can also have behavioral impact on animals. To cope with boredom and stress, animals engage in the repetitive behaviors known as stereotypies, such as when elephants rock from side to side. The immunological impact of captivity can take numerous forms, including stress-related susceptibility to disease. Finally, captivity affects animals through what's called failure to thrive. They'll lose their appetites, often to the point of malnutrition. If they're young, they don't grow at normal rates. They become withdrawn and uninterested in life. Along with considering the effects of captivity on the animals, we can also consider how well zoos deliver on the promises they use to justify their existence. We often hear that zoos, aquariums, and other captive animals settings provide an educational experience, especially for children. The experience of seeing an animal in captivity can purportedly spark interest in conservation. While that makes intuitive sense, the research doesn't back it up. Evidence has yet to prove this connection. Zoos provide information about animals, habitats, and conservation through signage. But people spend very little time reading it. In fact, they spend little time looking at any of the animals, and instead, rush on to whatever comes next. But suppose someone did find evidence that zoo visits provide valuable educational experiences, does this justify keeping animals in captivity? There are other ways to learn about animals which don't require confining them in zoos for their entire lives. Instead, we have access to unobtrusive views of animals in the wild. Thanks to technologically advanced documentaries. Zoos also claim to support scientific research, especially on species that would otherwise be inaccessible. But behavioral studies on captive animals are controversial. Animals don't behave in captivity as they would in the wild, so the findings would have limited applicability. Studies of pathology in captive animals have questionable aims, apparently serving mainly to diagnose and treat problems caused by captivity in the first place. Finally, zoos also justify their existence through conservation efforts, especially through captive breeding programs. While a number of these have been successful, having saved the California Condor and other species, captive breeding programs raise questions about genetic diversity. The limited gene pool can mean that the reintroduced members of endangered species have different traits than their wild counterparts would have. In addition, many animals born through captive breeding programs are unwanted. This possibility gained worldwide attention in 2014 when Marius, a giraffe at the Copenhagen Zoo, was killed and fed to lions because he was genetically redundant. When we think about zoos, we can consider their effects on the animals, but we can also consider what they say about us. Is it our right to see wild animals, whenever we like, on the weekends, while on vacation? If the answer is yes, then we're accepting that animals will spend their lives in captivity to make that possible. If our answer is no, then the future of zoos is an open question, waiting for creative compassionate people to find the answers.
