Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

Pro’s Opening Argument We will argue that it is morally desirable that animals be released from zoos, because zoos harm the overall well-being of both animals and humans. Contention 1: Zoos create unhappiness in animals Zoos do not adequately take care of animals, and are immoral due to the harm they cause. In order for animals to be taken care of, they must be fed and watered regularly, have their cages cleaned out to prevent respiratory infections, and have regular checkups to ensure their well-being. Also, if socialization is not provided, animals can become depressed, and sometimes, being secluded can result in [2] neurotic behaviors like incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, trichotillomania, and biting their own skin. [1] In 2010, a CAPS (Captive Animals Protection Society) undercover investigator filmed sick animals left untreated and dead animals left to rot on floors at Tweddle Farm Zoo. CAPS had to take rabbits to a vet to have infections treated, and after their expose, local police confiscated a monkey who had been kept alone and given cake and other junk food to eat. It is dangerous to feed human food to mammals. Many foods can be dangerous to animals, as their body can’t digest human food properly. Letting captive animals remain sick rather than treating them makes them unhappy and is thus immoral. As well, there is a risk of getting other animals sick in that enclosure. Not only are animals killed by neglect, but also by outright slaughter. [1] A CAPS study found that at least 7,500 animals – and possibly as many as 200,000 – in European zoos are ‘surplus’ at any one time. When these animals are no longer needed, they should be released back into the wild. Killing them robs them of potential happiness. [1] Animals are regularly ‘culled’ in UK zoos. In 2006, a whole pack of wolves at Highland Wildlife Park were killed after the social structure of the pack had broken down. In 2005, two wolf cubs and an adult female were shot dead at Dartmoor Wildlife Park. The vet reported: “Selective cull due to overcrowding and fighting in the pack” and “Further cull of cubs needed”. In 2001 a DEFRA zoo inspection of Dartmoor Wildlife Park in October 2001 found that “several significant dead animals” were stored in a food freezer “for taxidermy in the future”. Morally, a distinction must be made between killing animals and allowing them to die or go extinct. Killing animals is inherently depriving them of a right to live, while allowing them to die allows nature to run its natural course. Allowing extinction is not amoral, because to suppose that extinction harms animals is to suggest that animals that do not yet exist have any rights, akin to the “potential future persons” argument against abortion. [3] Zoos aren't the natural habitat of the animals, so therefore they cannot have a natural life. Recent studies show the artificial captive environment can generate intrinsic animal welfare problems such as abnormal behaviors such as self-mutilation; feeding disorders; and stereotypical behavior (e.g. pacing, neck twisting, or rocking). They also create problems such as reproductive disorders and physiological imbalances. A polar bear in the Dublin zoo was moved because of signs of stress and boredom. This magnificent animal had nothing to do but walk from one side of the enclosure to the other (pacing); it was eventually moved to the Czech Republic to a much larger enclosure. There are plenty of alternatives to having animals in zoos. In this day and age there are many different ways to learn about animals, apart from going to a zoo. Television is the best medium for this. There are documentaries such as The Life of Animals and The Blue Planet. These documentaries enable observation of animals in their natural habitats. Many other means to view and learn about these animals are on the Internet. People can interact and play educational games on the BBC's web sites -- they have a great deal of information about many kinds of animals. That’s a better alternative to removing animals from their natural habitat. There is no difference between watching an animal on T.V, and watching an animal through a fence. Observers cannot physically touch them either way. Watching documentaries and shows are also safer, as many zoo incidents have happened, and unfortunately, people have died. [3] Zoos seem to be friendly environments, but, since 1990, 42 people have been killed and 100 others injured by elephants worldwide in zoos. In the year 2000, more than 400 rhesus macaques (monkey) -- found to be carrying herpes B -- were required to be shot in UK zoos. Although not lethal to the monkeys, herpes B can be fatal to humans. In the last two years, 13 people in the UK have contracted salmonella from pet reptiles. In some way, these facts prove that animals shouldn't be kept in zoos because they carry diseases that can't harm themselves but can kill humans. Zoos make animals unhappy, and are thus immoral. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... Contention 2: Zoos are, on balance, harmful to the well-being of human societyZoos are no more beneficial to humans than to animals. In order to understand the extent to which zoos damage human society, one must understand opportunity cost (OC). In economic theory, OC refers to the fact that, whenever something is done, there is a cost in what could have been done instead. For example, if one has to decide between doing homework and playing with friends, and chooses to play, his OC is the homework that he gave up on to play. Zoos incur a high monetary OC; the money spent to maintain zoos could be much better spent in other ways. Point 1: Zoos are neither efficient nor cost-effective in achieving positive societal goalsThe Association of American Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) states that zoos and aquariums contribute $16 billion to the U.S. economy. While that sounds great, there’s a catch. That $16 billion is used, in the association’s own words, for reaching these goals: “science education and wildlife conservation, [generating] jobs and [supporting] local communities” (A). Let us examine the relative importance of these goals. First, note that the type of science that zoos typically educate about is biology, especially pertaining to animals. The summer camp at the San Diego Zoo, for instance, advertises “Explore the wonderful world of animals” (D). This sort of education is less useful and less cost effective to emphasize than other fields. According to BLS data, only about 1,000,000 people in the US are employed in biological, animal-related fields, and that’s with a liberal interpretation that includes biological engineering and environmental jobs. That’s not to say that biological jobs as a whole are unimportant, but, again, zoos emphasize instruction revolving around animals. It would be much more practical if the education efforts were devoted to a field like math; accountants alone are much more employable and relevant in today’s society than the entire animal-related field (C). Furthermore, there is not much evidence to support the notion that zoo science initiatives contribute anything meaningful to the lives of children in the first place, other than fun. Zoo science initiatives are a waste of money. The support of “wildlife conservation”, shown in C1 to not benefit animals, does not benefit humans either. This will be proven by later analysis of the opportunity costs. We concede that zoos do create jobs and support local communities, but there are many other businesses which would create greater societal benefits along with those jobs, and there is little evidence that supporting “local communities” is important. Any benefits of a zoo to humanity are minimal at best. It is true that zoo-goers do derive positive enjoyment from their trip, as that is what incentivizes the payment of admission, but several zoos receive funding from states (E), and the benefit to zoo-goers is not enough, because... Point 2: Money spent on zoos would be more beneficial to society if spent elsewhere; therefore, maintenance of and payment to zoos is immoralSpending by people and government on zoos is difficult to estimate. According again to the AZA, the contributions of zoos and aquariums to the economy are “$16.0 billion in economic activity (contribution to GDP) . . . $4.7 billion in personal earnings (salaries and wages) . . . 142,000 jobs.” (A). While this includes aquariums, it is decent enough to frame an estimate--we shall say that about half ($8 billion in economic activity, 71,000 jobs) of it comes from zoos. That money could be better spent in contribution to necessary public goods. If the money spent on zoos were spent on public infrastructure, for example, it would increase federal contributions to infrastructure by more than 8% (F). This would create approximately 173,000 jobs, using an estimate from Duke University, help to put a dent in $200 billion of economic loss from decaying infrastructure, and support American manufacturing jobs (G, page 12). Employment is one of the most important factors when calculating effects on happiness of humans, as it is what provides people in most countries with a means to attain happiness. The money would be more effectively spent in infrastructure than in zoos, so it is morally desirable that we shut down zoos, release the animals to stop wasting money on them, and spend the money on public infrastructure instead. Sources:A. http://tinyurl.com...B. http://tinyurl.com...C. http://tinyurl.com...D. http://tinyurl.com...E. http://tinyurl.com...F. http://tinyurl.com...G. http://tinyurl.com...