Zoos are morally wrong

Before I begin, I'd just like to point that zoos, whether it be for entertaiment or education, are irrefutably primarily utilised for the benefit of man and do not prioritise the well-being of animals over the profits and progressions of humanity. That is an undeniable fact that con cannot argue with. So, the only way that animal captivity could be deemed acceptable, is if the animals living in zoos live a more prosperous and fullfilling life than if they were to live in the wild. And that's the main question that needs to be answered in order to adjudicate whether or not zoos are morally wrong. I'm going to prove that zoos exclusively benefit humans and only harm the freedom and livlihood of animals on a general scale. Zoos can't replicate an animal's natural habitatBiologists from Oxford University reported that carnivorous species such as Polar bears, lions, tigers and cheetahs “show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity” and that “the keeping of naturally wide-ranging carnivores should be either fundamentally improved or phased out.” (1)A survey of the records of 4,500 elephants both in the wild and in captivity discovered that the average life span for an African elephant in a zoo was 16.9 years, whereas African elephants thriving in a nature preserve died of natural causes at an average age of 56 years. Researchers concluded that “bringing elephants into zoos profoundly impairs their viability.” (2)The typical zoo enclosure for a polar bear is one-millionth the size of its home territory in the wild - which can reach up to 31,000 square miles. It has also been reported that some captive polar bears spend up to a quarter of their day in what scientists call "stereotypic pacing", which sees the bears strolling meaninglessly around the enclosure over and over again with no real purpose. Also, the infant mortality rate for captive animals in captivity is around 65 percent and this has also been linked to the problem with the size and credibilty of the animal's enclosure. Animals are not designed to be crammed into such small spaces and gazed upon by loud humans for the rest of their impovershed lives. Just because we are the dominant species on this planet and we can, doesn't mean we should.Zoos are not successful breedersIt is often claimed that zoos are vital for the protection of endangered species. However, of the nearly 6,000 endangered and threatened species recorded by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, only 120 are used in zoo breeding programs. Furthermore, a number of the 120 animals used in breeding programs are notoriously difficult to breed, such as the panda and the elephant, and their numbers have not significantly changed. In fact, in the case of elephants, not a single species of its kind has successfully been bred in an Australian zoo and despite attempts to increase their population in zoos throughout Europe and the United States, their numbers are still decreasing throughout, and it is predicted that elephants will be non-existent in zoos across Europe and the U.S within a mere fifty years. (3)Moreover, there is also the problem of genetic diversity. In small populations (often the case in zoos) the issue of inbreeding is often a prominant one, which can result in genetically weaker offspring. These offspring are more vulnerable to death at a younger age and often struggle to breed later on in their lives, deafeating the whole purpose of the program.Zoos are clearly not a viable location for most animals to breed and this takes a huge chunk of credibility out of the existence of the zoo - if they're not successful in saving endangered species then what are they useful for?Animals becoming endangered is a problem created by us, and should be solved through environmental conservation and legislation banning the act of poaching, not through forcing species to unnaturally breed in a cage. Zoos are not educational Endlessly claiming that they provide the unprecedented opportunity for people to observe and learn about wild animals and that this inspires people to contribute to their preservation, perhaps the zoo's strongest argument is that it's an educational nature hub for the public. But what are they really showing us? Keeping animals in zoos articulates the message that animals are materialistic commodities and that they only serve as learning bait for humans, nothing else. The conditions under which animals are sustained in zoos typically distorts their behaviour and don't actually represent how the animal would act in the wild. Animals in zoos are merely small components of their wild counterpartsa and if people desire a genuine insight into the behaviour of wild animals, nature documentaries and books are the key to gaining a true and complete knowledge of wild animals, by depicting them in their natural habitats. The idea that people gaze into enclosures for the sake of enlightment rather than entertainment is an absolute farce. Over the course of five summers, a curator at the National Zoo followed more than 700 zoo visitors and found that “it didn’t matter what was on display...people were treating the exhibits like wallpaper.” He determined that “officials should stop kidding themselves about the tremendous educational value of showing an animal behind a glass wall" (4).ZoochosisIn 1992, Bill Travers first coined the term zoochosis to describe this obsessive, repetitive behaviour, and described zoo animals behaving abnormally as zoochotic. The terms are now widely recognised and in the public domain, being used in a wide range of journals and publications. (6)A countless number of animals trapped in zoos undertake stereotyped behaviours which signifies their boredom and frustration. Many of these behaviours have their basis in activities that occur naturally the wild, but in the impoverished confines of captivity, these behaviours can become compulsive and unnatural.Abormal behaviours such as bar biting, tongue playing, neck twisting, circling and rocking are all key symptons of this compulsive disease along with many others. If that isn't strong enough evidence that zoos are morally wrong then I'm not sure what is.SummaryIt is morally wrong to enslave any conscious being into a life outwith their instinctive natural habitat. Throughout the duration of this round I have highlighted that zoos are not tools of education and nor are they successful locations for reproducing animals in danger. Animals are often subject to psychotic behaviour and this is solely due to the simple fact that they have been entrapped in a world that makes little sense to them. Animals require the neccessities of company, freedom and most importantly, identity, as much as we do and this should be the basis for the destruction of zoos and the uprising of more conservational parks that allow endangered species to roam for miles in their familiar habitats without running the risk of dying an unnatural death. References:(1) Mark Derr, “Big Beasts, Tight Space and a Call for Change in Journal Report,”The New York Times 2 Oct. 2003.(2) Ross Clubb et al., “Compromised Survivorship in Zoo Elephants,” Science 322 (2008): 1649. (3) http://nationalzoo.si.edu...(4) William Booth, “Naked Ape New Zoo Attraction; Surprise Results From People-Watching Study,” The Washington Post 14 Mar. 1991(5) http://www.bornfree.org.uk...(6) http://liberationbc.org...