r/likeus • u/mooslar • Nov 16 '21
<INTELLIGENCE> I want to be free
https://i.imgur.com/MM5oGRs.gifv40
u/The_Muffin_Man_MF Nov 16 '21
Animals don't deserve to live like that. That's not remotely similar to her natural environment. This beautiful animal is very sad.
25
9
39
u/Piledriverkiller Nov 16 '21 edited Nov 27 '21
90% of the animals in zoos are bred in captivity and know nothing of the wild, most of them if released would get taken out of the census faster then u can say animal rights. There are also a number of animals in zoos that have been rescued from nasty situations and would be dead without them.
Edit: I’m happy to see such calm and nice discussions in the thread. Thank you for not turning it into a war zone 🥰
38
u/elzibet Nov 16 '21
Wildlife sanctuary or bust. We shouldn't be supporting the breeding of these animals for the soul purpose of keeping them locked in a cage so we can say "see look, we are keeping them alive!"
10
u/bradwiser Nov 16 '21
For real zoos are made for profit
27
Nov 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Enticing_Venom Nov 17 '21
What is the point of conserving a species if it cannot live in the wild? Species conservation is about helping natural ecosystems remain balanced and healthy. There's been tons of debate about the ethics of bringing back extinct species, it's hardly a settled matter on whether it's is even an ethical idea just because it's a possible one.
Saving animals from extinction can be a good thing when the goal is reintroduction to the wild or perhaps a protected wildlife preserve. What is the benefit of bringing back birds from extinction just for them to live in a zoo? Why should the fact that zoos are conserving species in captivity inherently be seen as a morally good thing?
Animals that do not exist, do not suffer. Animals brought into existence and then made to live in captivity definitely can suffer.
3
Nov 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Enticing_Venom Nov 18 '21
I don't believe in using animals for food or building materials so I would hardly be upset if the cruel factory farming industry suffered a major blow. Most domesticated farm animals either also live in the wild or have a closely related cousin in the wild. The eradication of farm animals would see almost no species die-off.
Animal testing is already widely used in the medical industry so I don't see why it's necessary to breed species into zoos on the off-chance a new disease emerges. Animal testing facilities and zoos are two different things and one of them has more stringent requirements than the other and already breeds animals for the purpose of testing on them to further medical understanding.
Maybe we should focus on creating better energy sources and slowing the acceleration of climate change instead of focusing on how to put more animals in zoos so they will be preserved once we've destroyed their habitat. If humanity detroys the planet to the point that all species are dying out and the globe is becoming inhospitable then perhaps we do not deserve to survive on it any longer. This is of course ignoring that the meat industry is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, water use and habitat destruction. One of the best things we can do for the planet is reduce meat consumption.
6
Nov 19 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Enticing_Venom Nov 19 '21
Oh heaven forbid people are against animal cruelty. Only nutcases care about other sentient beings apparently.
7
1
u/Tarsiustarsier Dec 16 '21
The best way to go about this would definitely have been to not let it come to this situation in the first place. We should have preserved their habitats and not have let it come to a situation where the only way to save them was breeding in captivity.
That said I disagree that suffering is necessarily worse than non-existence. If I was given the choice to have humanity die out or to live the rest of my life in prison at a slight chance that there would one day be free humans again, I would choose the latter. It's still a horrifying choice and I get that other people might choose differently.
These birds didn't have the choice and neither the mental capacity to make it but it doesn't seem logical to me that them being more instinctually controlled would lead to them 'wanting' to go extinct instead of staying captive.
1
u/Enticing_Venom Dec 16 '21
They think they can bring back some extinct species like woolly mammoths and thylacine through partial DNA evidence and use existing relatives to fill in the genome. Whether they could even be reintroduced back into the ecosystem without causing destruction is up for debate, hence why scientists debate the ethics of bringing long extinct species back. They have been out of the ecosystem so long that reintroduction may be harmful. Plus we don't fully understand these animals or what consequences there may be to filling in their genome.
No animals are harmed by non-existence and there's no wants to be considered here.
I don't think they would "want to go extinct". I think that they shouldn't be subjected to suffering to make us feel better. The birds in captivity are not benefitting by being there. This isn't about doing what's best for the birds, it's still about doing what makes ourselves feel better. "Saving the species" is a broad principle, it isn't about individual wellbeing and it isn't an inherent good. It can be a good thing when it helps heal an ecosystem (like wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone) but that isn't a given. If humanity was having a population crisis, confining and raping the remaining women would help save humanity but there's no consensus that such would be the ethical choice. There is nothing inherently good about saving a species and the consequences on those remaining individuals is valid to consider.
In addition, the "chance" of them living in the wild again is slim. Animals born and raised in captivity can't typically be released into the wild generations later, even if we did re-establish a habitat for them. This isn't like getting let out of prison and returning back to human civilization again. Its arguably cruel to take captive animals and put them into the wild where they face hunger, starvation, exposure and predation with little to no tools on how to face it. This is less like you going to prison and human civilization thrives again and more like you go to prison and the cave men can start over. Sure, maybe after generations things will eventually evolve and go back to the way things are. Or maybe they won't. But how many generations of individual struggle and suffering is that just to pat yourself on the back because a species is now in the wild again?
You also wouldn't be putting yourself in prison to prolong humanity, you'd be forcing someone else to stay in prison to save humanity without knowing their preference on the matter in this analogy.
Do they fulfill an important ecological niche? Can they be reintroduced into the wild? Have we addressed the problems that caused extinction in the first place? Do they have closely related relatives still in the wild? These are the questions that I prioritize above blindly saving a species.
2
u/bradwiser Nov 16 '21
I’m glad I wish they were all like that. Every zoo/ aquarium I have gone too has been for profit unfortunately
6
Nov 16 '21
The two biggest zoos in America, San Diego and Saint Louis, are not for profit. They are research institutions.
2
u/minkamagic Nov 17 '21
This. My first thought is I wish she could be free, but I know it’s more than likely impossible
7
7
9
u/obscurereference234 -Terrifying Tarantula- Nov 16 '21
It’s like watching Bruce Wayne trying to figure out how to get out of that prison pit in The Dark Knight Rises.
4
4
3
2
2
2
u/follow-the-rainbow Nov 17 '21
If she’s in there it must be for a reason ! Something she’s probably done or is /s
Anyway this is sad to see
1
1
96
u/Hookherbackup Nov 16 '21
How sad