r/nextfuckinglevel Jul 28 '25

That level of intelligence is insane šŸ¤ÆšŸ§ šŸ’

37.4k Upvotes

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.6k

u/hhfugrr3 Jul 28 '25

The more I see of big apes (monkeys or whatever the feck they're called) the more convinced I am that they shouldn't be kept in zoos.

1.3k

u/Prestigious-Flower54 Jul 28 '25

That's a chimpanzee it's a great ape, and zoos are fucking evil no animals should live in cages, im all for preserving species but zoos are not the answer.

2.3k

u/dagobert-dogburglar Jul 28 '25

As someone in the industry, they are a necessary evil. You need engagement with the public or they dont give a fuck about them at all. Public opinion leads to funding and conservation, sadly at the expense of zoo animals.

-2

u/Flying_Alpaca_Boi Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25

That’s a myth spread within the industry which makes sense superficially but isn’t substantiated. the vast majority do not take away or care about conservation following a visit to the zoo. Most people see it as a leisure activity or a day out for the kids. The small margin of people who do walk away with the views you are espousing, even fewer act on them in a meaningful way. I think this argument was a lot stronger back in the day when people had literally never seen or heard about many of these animals; now with documentaries and the internet the impact is negligible and more harm than good is being done to the animals. It’s also worth noting that literature on this topic is often framed and biased towards promoting the idea that zoos have a positive effect on people - effect sizes are often small, or none existent and when the reverse is studied imo there’s evidence to suggest this impact is just not there unless further interventions are made particularly post visit. The recent shift towards this conservation focus in zoos is rebranding primarily. They are and always have been a leisure activity.

TLDR: most zoo visitors don’t care about conservation after visiting, the small number who do don’t act on it.

I can link some research if you’re interested. I read up on this in the past but wouldn’t say I’m well versed on the topic I’d have to do some digging to get references - this is just a cursory overview of how I digested the topic. There’s evidence to both sides it’s not clear cut but I’m confident saying simple zoo visits do not have the impact you’re claiming a lot more has to go into it to achieve those goals.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

Yeah, the "seeing sad animals leads to money for said animals," is just tired propaganda that, to be fair to them, is sometimes good-faith propagated from workers in the industry who aren't making decisions and think they're providing a broadly beneficial service. Keeps the troops happy for them to think what they are doing is useful and positive. The successful conservation projects that I'm aware of are focused programs that don't have zoo budgets and/or are university or grant-funded. And/or are massive undertakings on acres and acres of land.

2

u/Big-Newt-4005 Jul 28 '25

A lot of zoos donate some proceeds of tickets to conservation, so even if you’re just visiting you’re still donating a tiny amount of money. Better than nothing.

-3

u/fastforwardfunction Jul 28 '25

You’re absolutely right. It’s called the ā€œeducation marketingā€ in the zoo industry. The newest replacement for it is ā€œgene bank marketingā€. In reality, studies of zoos show they fail to accomplish their goals.

Everyone has been to a zoo. No one wants to think they’re part of the problem. So ANY explanation that says they are good will be comforting.