Zoos can’t be ethically justified.
Proposition
Zoos are no longer ethically justified.
For: Opening
F.O.01 Entertainment used to be the only justification we needed to cage animals. But once investigations showed that animals suffered and died from living and working conditions, public opinion changed and with it the animal entertainment industry. In response, zoos adjusted and re-framed their mission to one that focused on education, scientific research, and conservation.
F.O.02 Change may be on the horizon, however, because new evidence shows that animals are sentient beings, many of whom have complex inner and emotional lives.
F.O.03 In 2012, it was declared, “humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.” All mammals, birds, and other animals like octopuses, possess consciousness (“Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness” 2012). The great apes, dolphins, and elephants aren’t the only ones who mourn, celebrate, and plan for the future. These traits have even been observed in fish (Balcombe 2016).
F.O.04 Today, few people believe that zoos are justified in keeping animals in captivity solely for entertainment. But what about for education, science, or conservation? Whether zoos successfully serve those purposes is uncertain and controversial. Because animals are sentient beings, the benefits of captivity don’t outweigh the costs.
Educational Charades
F.O.05 Proponents often defend zoo exhibits and amusements because of their role in educating people, especially children, about animals. The Association for Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) asserts that zoos are effective tools for education that positively change people’s attitudes toward wildlife (Falk et al. 2007).
F.O.06 Various researchers disagree. Some criticized the AZA study’s limitations, conflicts of interest, and assumptions (Dawson and Jensen 2011; Marino et al. 2010); none found support for the claim that zoos promote long-lasting education or changes in visitors’ attitudes (Moss and Esson 2013; Dawson and Jensen 2011; Marino et al. 2010; Ballantyne et al. 2007; Reading and Miller 2007).
F.O.07 Do people go to zoos for educational purposes? Zoos present manufactured, self-directed learning environments: if motivated by education, people must come to zoos with the intent to learn (Moss and Esson 2013). Most don’t — they visit to be entertained. If you’ve ever visited a zoo, you know from experience that most people spend little time reading signs, especially those with a lot of text or those next to unpopular animals.
F.O.08 Educational effectiveness can also be affected by several factors. Preexisting knowledge and attitudes (Moss and Esson 2013), how closely enclosures mimic natural environments (Ballantyne et al. 2007), and an animal’s rarity, size, and endangered status (Moscardo et al. 2000) all influence emotional appeal and thus, whether you’re likely to acquire new knowledge.
F.O.09 Since the evidence in support of education doesn’t stack up in favor of zoos, simply pursuing knowledge for its own sake isn’t ethical grounds for confining sentient beings in cages.
F.O.10 Zoos aren’t our only option for learning about wildlife, science, and conservation. Lectures, books, videos, assignments, and discussions from formal educational institutions can suffice. Plus, we can have immersive experiences through ecotourism and travel, spending time in the outdoors, and visiting national, state, or local parks, and museums.
An Issue of Significance
F.O.11 Zoos claim to support and conduct vital scientific research. Some provide funding or research support to unaffiliated scientists. The Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago supports 19 field projects where multiple independent organizations work together (“Conservation and Science” n.d.). Zoos are most likely to contribute to science as part of a collaborative network that focuses on ecosystem and species health. Nevertheless, those studies rarely benefit zoo animals and most of this research could be supported by other agencies.
F.O.12 Research conducted at zoos tends to focus on animal behavior, anatomy, and pathology to improve zoo conditions and clarify animal preferences and stressors. That research isn’t valuable in its own right because if zoos didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a need for research on how to improve them!
F.O.13 Since most zoo research is conducted on captive animals, it’s generally limited in scope, experimental design, and relevance. The behavior of captive animals and experimental constraints are highly variable. Therefore, experiments are unlikely to be replicated — a tenet of scientific research — and results won’t be consistent between zoos or captive and wild animals.
F.O.14 Statistically, credible scientific research requires robust sample sizes. The small number of animals of a species at zoos precludes generalization of results, especially to field settings. Such research would be useless for understanding wildlife threats and conserving species in the wild.
F.O.15 In reality, very few zoos do significant research. Although 173 of the 236 AZA-accredited zoos reported participating in research projects, only 11 had full-time research staff. Of the 1,280 reported studies in 2017, 170 papers, reports, or book chapters were published (“Research and Science” n.d.). Only 13% of studies have become available to the scientific community, while the majority of the research hasn’t been published.
F.O.16 The best research uncovers a universal truth so significant that it sheds light on an issue as a whole and thus outweighs any costs. Because it’s clear that most zoo research doesn’t do this, keeping animals in captivity for research purposes is not justified.
A Dying Breed of Conservation
F.O.17 Do zoos conserve species that would otherwise go extinct? Most attempt to do so through Species Survival Plan (SSP) breeding programs. The aim is to “oversee the population management of select species” across AZA-accredited institutions and “enhance conservation of [that] species in the wild” (“Species Survival Plan Programs” n.d.). Note that SPP programs don’t require a species to be endangered.
F.O.18 The SSP strives to maximize genetic diversity and population sustainability. Ironically, one of the largest concerns with breeding programs is genetic diversity loss (Jiang et al. 2005), often resulting in high infant mortality rates (Jamieson 2006). Animals bred in captive isolation within small sub-populations can also diverge behaviorally and genetically, so that eventually, they differ from the source population in the wild (Jamieson 2006) raising concerns about reintroductions.
F.O.19 Despite the ubiquitous use of contraception (an ethical issue in its own right), many breeding programs produce a surplus of animals. Zoos may engage in what Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology, calls “zoothanasia”: the intentional killing of healthy animals who don’t fit into a zoo’s breeding program (Bekoff 2012). Animals can also end up in circuses, roadside shows, or be sold on the black market, which fuels the exotic animal and parts trade and illegal breeding programs (Jamieson 2006).
F.O.20 Ideally, zoo breeding programs release captive-born animals into the wild to supplement endangered wild populations, but it is an elusive goal. Habituation to humans, a lack of survival and hunting behaviors and skills, and the complicated nature of reintroducing new individuals into cohesive groups, mean that most reintroduced animals die (Jule et al. 2008; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000).
F.O.21If a species isn’t protected in the wild — the reason many are endangered — the reintroduction of new animals will cause suffering and fail. Out of 500 AZA SSP programs (“Species Survival Plan Programs” n.d.), ten species have been “saved from the brink” (“10 endangered species” 2017). But the lack of protection they receive in the wild continues to threaten their existence. Dr. Paul Dolman, a lead researcher from the University of East Anglia states, “without conservation in the wild there is no point in captive breeding” (University of East Anglia 2015). In some cases it can do more harm than good (Dolman et al. 2015).
F.O.22 We should ask ourselves this final, poignant question: Should we strive to conserve species that may only exist in zoos one day?
No Justification
F.O.23 Zoos claim to be important institutions for education, research, and conservation despite the lack of scientific evidence for these outcomes. They deny animals a basic right to freedom, elicit unnatural behaviors leading to stress, and can cause suffering or death. Zoos also perpetuate the false belief that humans are superior and have the right to use and abuse other species for selfish gain.
F.O.24 Without proof that zoos promote education or support significant research and conservation, we are left with anecdotes and knowledge for its own sake, which doesn’t justify keeping sentient beings captive. Once we understand that many animals are capable of complex thought and emotion, acknowledging that zoos are unethical institutions comes on its heels.
Against: Opening
A.O.01 It is difficult to think of a more wholesome family activity than a visit to the local zoo. Seeing the awe and inspiration displayed on a child’s face when they see an elephant or zebra for the first (and perhaps only) time in person is powerful. At the same time, zoos have come under fire for their treatment of animals. To be sure, the concern of animal maltreatment is valid and serious. Many people feel that humans do not have a right to contain wild animals in any capacity to begin with, let alone in spaces that are arguably inhumane. Furthermore, many would agree that animals are intelligent, important, and exist for purposes well beyond that of human education and pleasure.
A.O.02 In an ideal world, no animals would be endangered or threatened as a result of human impacts on their natural environment. However, we live in a world struggling with climate change, habitat loss, and other increasing threats to wildlife. In this context, zoos are ethically justifiable for three reasons. First, they are a haven from the struggles of habitat loss, starvation, and other challenges in the wild. Second, zoos offer natural spaces in otherwise urban areas, thus providing unique spaces that enhance communities and contribute to human flourishing. And third, zoos provide enriching educational opportunities for people of all ages who otherwise may not have access to such opportunities. The exposure can help form children and adults into socially- and environmentally-conscious individuals who can help fight for the fair treatment of animals in zoos and beyond. In other words, zoos can help address the very injustices that their opponents highlight.
Zoos help vulnerable species
A.O.03 Zoos save animals from poachers, starvation, habitat loss, and predators. Because of the threat of climate change, animals are more vulnerable than ever to environmental threats from human actions. Of course, the reality of climate change demands long-term sustainable action. Yet, at the very least, zoos can provide a short-term refuge for animals who are vulnerable or endangered. Not only do zoos offer refuge for vulnerable and endangered species, but they actively work to reverse this vulnerability by breeding animals that would otherwise be vulnerable to extinction. This breeding often leads to reintroduction programs that release animals back into the wild. This process further works to reverse the damaging effects of habitat loss, poachers, and other human-induced environmental challenges.
A.O.04 For example, according to Bird Life International, the Hawaiian Crow is extinct in the wild, but has found refuge in captivity. A reintroduction plan is being developed so that it can safely return to the wild. Additionally, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has developed Species Survival Plan Programs that work to “oversee the population management of select species…and to enhance conservation of this species in the wild.”
A.O.05 Zoos allow for better research on animals. In fact, all AZA-accredited zoos are expected to participate in research in order to “advance scientific knowledge of the animals in [their] care, enhance the conservation of wild populations, and engage and inspire the visiting public.” By engaging in humane research in zoos, we can better understand vulnerable animals and work harder to protect them than we could in the wild.
A.O.06 Accredited zoos can be trusted in that they are regulated by entities such as the AZA. Those that are not AZA-accredited are still regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which helps ensure that animals in zoos have “adequate housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care and protection from extreme weather and temperatures.” This legislation allows for unannounced checks of zoos and works to make sure the animals are well cared for at all times. To be sure, there is broad criticism that AWA regulations are insufficient. However, given the significant advantages of zoos presented here, this criticism does not mean that zoos are hopelessly harmful and cruel. Rather, this legislative shortcoming calls for better regulation, not for the eradication of zoos altogether.
A.O.07 Finally, we must not conflate freedom with goodness. The National Wildlife Federation rightly points out that animals in the wild must deal with the threat and stress of predators, untreated illness and injury, invasive species, poor diet, and exposure to the elements. In well-run zoos, however, animals do not have to deal with these challenges, at least not to the same extent. This does not mean that all animals in the wild should be brought into captivity. It merely demonstrates that those who are vulnerable and brought into captivity can experience relief from stressors in the wild.
Zoos provide spaces for human flourishing and health
A.O.08 More than 135 million people visit the more than one hundred zoos in the United States every year (Melson 75). Many of these people live in urban areas with high population density and very little green space. Los Angeles and New York City, for instance, are the two most densely populated cities in the country, making it arduous for residents to get around each day, let alone find time for nature (Dillinger 2017). Fortunately, cities like these usually have zoos available for their residents. The presence of these zoos helps ensure that folks in urban environments have exposure to more than urban critters like dogs and pigeons. This matters because, as one study found, “feeling connected to animals at the zoo is significantly associated with cognitive and emotional responses to climate change, as well as with other social groupings and social responses” (Clayton et al. 2014). Another study discusses how visits to natural spaces can have positive effects on our health. That is, there are “comprehensive health benefits of exposure to nature and green environments on human systems” (Hansen et al. 2017). Zoos offer these green spaces and can provide some health benefits by bringing wild nature to the cities. Their presence can offer mental and emotional relief for humans while also educating them about the environmental issues that affect them and non-human animals so pervasively and deeply.
Zoos contribute to education and environmental efforts
A.O.09 Interactions with animals can help children engage in critical thinking about their connection to non-human animals and their own place in the wider ecosystem (Melson 2001). In The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild Places, Nabhan and Trimble emphasize the importance of children’s interactions with wild animals in order to prevent what they call “the extinction of experience” (p. 92). Zoos can help facilitate and strengthen environmental literacy by giving children unique interactions with animals from not only their own region, but also regions all over the world (Melson 2001). Experiences like these help shape children at a malleable age. That is, zoos help them see early on that animals hold a valuable place in the ecosystem and deserve our protection and respect. Accredited zoos also offer training programs to teachers who will reach out to children. Within a recent ten-year span, more than 400,000 teachers were trained with sophisticated science curricula that they then passed onto young minds. In other words, zoos reach well beyond their borders to inspire and teach young people (Melson 2001).
A.O.10 Finally, a conservation biologist theorizes that “a physical separation from nature . . . leads to a psychological separation from nature” (Mader 2014). That is, those who do not have easy access to natural spaces may be less likely to think about nature and its importance. This dynamic can potentially lead to less awareness, understanding, and action regarding issues like climate change. In fact, one study of more than 5,000 people found that zoo visits did, in fact, “prompt individuals to reconsider their role in environmental problems and conservation action, and to see themselves as part of the solution” (Falk et al. 2007). Those surveyed also identified a stronger connection to nature because of their visits to local zoos. Overall, zoos help individuals of all ages think critically about the animals they are seeing, the wider ecosystems, and their own roles within them.
For: Rebuttal
F.R.01 My opponent provides a compelling defense for zoos. However, her arguments are deficient or they perpetuate a human-centered worldview and therefore, provide a false basis for justification.
F.R.02 First, I need to address an overarching concern. Misconceptions about zoo accreditation and licensing are common, and the argument in A.O.05 is overly simplistic. About 2,800 animal exhibitors are licensed in the United States, but fewer than 10% are AZA-accredited (“About AZA Accreditation” n.d.). Although the remaining 2,520 exhibitors are licensed by the USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Animal Welfare Act only requires a minimum basic care and doesn’t cover birds, rats, mice, livestock, reptiles, amphibians, fish, or invertebrates (Lin 2007).
Zoos Aren’t Safe Havens
F.R.03 The claim that zoos are a “haven” from environmental threats (A.O.02) and that we shouldn’t “conflate freedom with goodness” in this context (A.O.06) is fanciful. Sheltering animals from experiencing harsh realities of a life in the wild — which they’d be exposed to if they were reintroduced — doesn’t mean captivity is virtuous or preferable to freedom. A life lacking intellectual stimulation and the freedom to exercise natural instincts and proclivities is hardly desirable.
F.R.04 My opponent continues, saying zoos provide “short-term refuge for vulnerable and endangered species,” and they “reverse this vulnerability by breeding animals that would otherwise be vulnerable to extinction” through reintroduction programs (A.O.03). This is misleading. In fact, the majority of captive-born animals aren’t endangered or reintroduced to the wild. Only 16% of species in AZA-accredited zoos are threatened or endangered and only 34% of all SSP breeding programs focus on endangered species (“Zoo and Aquarium Statistics” n.d.).
F.R.05 Breeding programs are also highly unethical (see F.O.19). A horrifying example was when Marius the giraffe in Copenhagen was killed, butchered, and fed to lions in full view of zoo visitors because his genetic makeup was overrepresented in the zoo’s gene pool (Smith 2014).
F.R.06 Lastly, the argument for research isn’t as strong as suggested in A.O.05. I mention in F.O.12 through F.O.14 that most zoo research is conducted on captive animals to understand their preferences within the confines of a zoo or is very limited in terms of scope and relevance. That research is not only unimportant, but it also doesn’t help us “understand vulnerable species” or “protect them” in the wild (A.O.05).
An Egocentric Flourishing
F.R.07 Next, my opponent argues, “zoos offer natural spaces in otherwise urban areas, thus providing unique spaces that enhance communities and contribute to human flourishing” (A.O.02). She cites psychological and social benefits for humans living in overcrowded cities removed from nature (A.O.08). Clearly, this is a valid point in favor of zoos, but only if you consider the benefits to humans and ignore the impacts on other animals. Of course, for zoos to be beneficial in this way, people must actually visit them.
F.R.08 The idea that zoos emotionally connect people to animals and nature and encourage us to think about climate change is compelling (A.O.08). However, the researchers are careful to point out that although zoo visitors expressed a sense of connection, which was related to attitudes about climate change, “The data cannot distinguish whether the sense of connection is preexisting or is a more transient state induced by the zoo visit.” In other words, the study found a correlation between them, not causality (Clayton et al. 2014).
F.R.09 These arguments can’t ethically justify zoos because they’re human-centered and fail to account for the lives of animals.
The Fallacy of Education
F.R.10 The last justification offered is that “zoos provide enriching educational opportunities for people of all ages” (A.O.02). I agree that feeling connected to nature and environmental literacy is important (A.O.09). However, I explain in F.O.05 through F.O.08 that the evidence isn’t conclusive.
F.R.11 The most widely cited reference for the educational benefits of zoos (included in A.O.10) has been subjected to scrutiny and criticism (Falk et al. 2007) (See F.O.05 and F.O.06). The researchers were accused of making several methodological errors and strong causal claims that weren’t supported by their data (Moss and Esson 2013; Dawson and Jensen 2011; Marino et al. 2010). For instance, they measured what people said they believed, not their actual knowledge, and failed to account for response bias — that is, whether people were providing answers they thought the researchers wanted to hear.
F.R.12 Unfortunately, there also aren’t data to support the statement that people who visit zoos will “help fight for the fair treatment of animals” (A.O.02) since “zoos help [children] see early on that animals hold a valuable place in the ecosystem and deserve our protection and respect” (A.O.09). Realistically, it may do exactly the opposite. By taking children to zoos, we teach them it’s morally OK to confine animals and perpetuate the false belief that we are superior.
F.R.13 It makes sense that people “who do not have easy access to natural spaces may be less likely to think about nature and its importance,” which could “lead to less awareness, understanding, and action regarding issues like climate change” (A.O.09). However, I disagree that zoos are the best way to bridge that gap.
F.R.14 Caging animals isn’t a solution for “a world struggling with climate change, habitat loss, and other increasing threats to wildlife” (A.O.02). It only creates another problem. If zoos’ main objective were to protect vulnerable species in the wild, then they would house only endangered species; all captive-bred animals would be both endangered and reintroduced to the wild; and animals wouldn’t be killed for not fitting into a zoo’s breeding program.
Against: Rebuttal
Education Is Often a Subtle and Prolonged Process
A.R.01 I want to add some nuance to the evolution of zoos that my opponent outlines in F.O.01. Although part of the narrative may have been zoos responding to criticism, there also was a backdrop of “a great interest in the ethology and social biology of animals” (Phillips 2015). In other words, there were more altruistic motives behind the evolution of zoos. Many folks wanted to understand more about the animals and provide good care for them, not merely avoid criticism (although this may have been part of the shift for some).
A.R.02 In F.O.07, my opponent assumes that many people — perhaps most people — visit zoos without explicitly learning anything. However, just because people may not spend their time explicitly learning at zoos does not mean they are not affected and inspired in positive ways. Learning can be implicit, subtle, and impactful over the long-term.
A.R.03 In F.O.09, my opponent states, “simply pursing knowledge for its own sake, isn’t ethical grounds for confining sentient beings in cages.” I agree with her that this reason alone is insufficient. However, my opponent leaves out the many other reasons that she and I have both discussed for why zoos exist. With these combined reasons (conservation, inspiration, etc.), I argue that zoos are ethically justified.
A.R.04 As I stated in paragraph A.O.10, “a physical separation from nature…leads to a psychological separation from nature” (Mader 2014). This disconnect can lead to weakened engagement with issues pertaining to environmentalism and animal welfare. Although books, videos, and discussions can be highly valuable, they do not compare to being in physical proximity to animals and the wonder they inspire (F.O.10). As far as the “ecotourism and travel” that my opponent recommends in F.O.10, these activities can be difficult for low-income families. Given the ubiquity of zoos, they offer everyone the opportunity to be immersed in unique natural spaces with animals they may never otherwise encounter.
Research Is Justified Given the Complexity at Hand
A.R.05 In F.O.12, my opponent writes that research on animals in captivity would not be necessary if zoos did not exist. On its own, this statement is true. However, it ignores the fact that animals are in zoos for complex and valid reasons, such as preservation and safety. Her argument dismisses this reality by assuming that zoos exist simply for our entertainment.
A.R.06 In F.O.15, my opponent sets a high bar for research. To expect studies to “[uncover] a universal truth” is unfair and ignores the countless studies whose conclusions fall short of this, but still manage to shed some light on the issue at hand. Many studies end with humble results, often emphasizing their limits and the need for additional research. This does not mean that their research was done in vain. I agree that the products of research should outweigh any costs. However, my opponent speaks of research as if it is the only thing keeping animals in captivity. As she and I have both pointed out, there are other reasons.
A.R.07 In F.O.16, my opponent notes that the AZA does not require a species to be endangered in order to be a part of a Species Survival Plan program. While not a strict requirement, the AZA does specify that these programs aim to “manage and conserve a select and typically threatened or endangered” species population (Animal Programs, n.d.; emphasis added). While perhaps not all their efforts pertain to vulnerable species, they explicitly prioritize these groups and make a concerted effort to engage in conservation.
A.R.08 The issues raised in F.O.18 are undoubtedly serious. No animals should have to suffer or die unnecessarily, whether that is from “zoothanasia” or being sold on the black market. These challenges do not necessitate the elimination of zoos altogether, but require better regulation. Zoos come with many benefits, as I have argued. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Zoos Embody a Helpful Way Forward
A.R.09 In F.O.23, my opponent writes, “zoos also perpetuate the false belief that humans are superior and have the right to use and abuse other species for selfish gain.” Of course, we should never advocate for or excuse the abuse of animals. I want to argue that, regardless of whether we see ourselves as superior beings, we as human beings have a responsibility to combat the human-induced threats of climate change, habitat loss, etc. Zoos help us do that by offering regulated spaces for vulnerable species, combatting the forces that make them vulnerable in the first place, and inspiring the public to do the same. These goals do not exist merely for selfish gain.
For: Closing
F.C.01 In the beginning I stated, “Entertainment used to be the only justification we needed to cage animals” (F.O.01). But it was eventually regarded as unethical. It’s time to reexamine the ethical role of zoos and their support of education, scientific research, and conservation in the justification of animal captivity.
F.C.02 By definition, education requires knowledge gain. Yet, there’s no conclusive evidence that zoos promote education or beneficial attitude changes towards wildlife. Knowledge for its own sake isn’t grounds for keeping animals captive, and neither inspiration (A.R.02 and A.R.04) nor the virtue of encountering unfamiliar animals (A.R.04) can act as education. On the whole, zoos aren’t justified by inspiring a few visitors.
F.C.03 Zoos support little scientific research. Most studies are under constraining limitations, which prevents a wider application because they are conducted on captive animals. Research ideally “uncover[s] a universal truth so significant that it sheds light on an issue as a whole and thus, outweighs any costs” (F.O.16). It’s never been truer than when applied to living, sentient animals. We should be demanding the highest standards for research in terms of ethics, significance, and credibility — that would be fair (A.R.06).
F.C.04 Instances where zoos have prevented species extinctions or contributed to conservation efforts in the wild are rare. SSP programs are unethical and unlikely to conserve wild populations because they don’t focus exclusively on endangered species and most captive-born animals aren’t reintroduced to the wild (F.R.04).
F.C.05 My opponent suggests these inadequacies can be addressed through regulation (A.O.06 and A.R.08). But better regulations aren’t going to address animal captivity — the ethical issue being discussed.
F.C.06 Based on the evidence, zoos don’t successfully serve their goals. Coupled with the knowledge that animals (especially those in zoos) are capable of suffering and complex thoughts and emotions, the benefits of zoos do not outweigh the costs of captivity. Just as circuses lost public favor, so too will zoos.
Against: Closing
A.C.01 I want to reiterate my stance that the poor regulation of zoos does not automatically necessitate their removal from society altogether. It is more realistic and appropriate to insist on improved regulation of zoos. This action would allow zoos to continue carrying out the benefits I have outlined while also holding them to a higher standard that ensures the flourishing of all creatures. Put another way, zoos are not inherently bad when one considers what they are responding to (environmental destruction) and working toward (a better world for all animals). Rather, zoos become harmful when they are poorly regulated.
A.C.02 This argument extends into the discussion on breeding and reintroduction. If only a minority of endangered species are a part of Species Survival Plan breeding programs (F.R.04), we must fight to change that, not erase zoos entirely. We must push for the preservation of animals like the Hawaiian Crow (A.O.04) that is extinct in the wild, but will soon be reintroduced to the wild, thanks to the hard work of zoo officials.
A.C.03 Zoos also offer wholesome, accessible natural environments where people of all ages and abilities can come together to experience a small, yet powerful snapshot of nature. This refuge from more urban settings not only offers physical and psychological health benefits, but it engages people with issues of environmentalism, climate change, and their own individual impact in the world (Hansen et al. 2017).
A.C.04 As I have stated, many zoos train educators in their communities, thus teaching people — children especially — not just through direct experience with animals, but indirectly in children’s own daily learning environments (Melson 2001). This knowledge and these experiences provided by zoos help form young people to think more critically about the natural world and their place in it (Melson 2001).
Debaters
For: Haley R. Pope
Haley R. Pope has a Master of Science in Zoology from Stellenbosch University in South Africa where she studied marine ecology and climate change (Research). As the President of TerraLens Photography LLC, Haley provides conservation photography, photo archiving, and writing services and has written for organizations like the North American Nature Photography Association and Save Our Seas Foundation. This work can be viewed on her website. Haley provided the image for this debate.
Against: Tara Corbett
Tara Corbett has a Master’s in Social Work from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, as well as a Master’s in Theological Studies from Duke University. Tara is fascinated by the intersections of ethics, theology, and culture. As a recent Duke graduate, she hopes to land a job that empowers marginalized women. Longer-term, Tara plans to pursue a PhD in Christian social ethics.
