Are Zoos animal prisons or instead places where sick and injured species are looked after? Do Zoos help us learn about animals or do they instead exist as entertainment for our insatiable curiosity? Should Zoos be banned? In this video we’ll learn about the 2 sides of this argument and hopefully find the answer.

Get PAID For Answering Surveys- No Joke, I got £30 off of this in a week-http://qm.ee/488B3739

SUBSCRIBE HERE!-   / @thatswhytv  

Where you can find me!
Twitter:   / thatswhytv  
Facebook:   / thatswhytv  

The first question to ask is what are zoos? Zoos are confined spaces in which animals are kept for 3 main reasons, for our entertainment, to be cared for, and to be studied. These 3 main functions of zoos are how I’m going to group the arguments for and against zoos into.

Firstly, Zoos are places of entertainment where people can come and look at animals,
and because of this zoos are stationary, they don’t move around and often in built up areas where there are lots of people. Because of this the spaces afforded to animals in Zoos are often smaller than the animals actual habitat, which can cause neurotic behaviour like pacing and aggression, as well as milder forms such as boredom and lethargy. Consequently, animals in zoos can sometimes actually be dangerous to humans, which defeats the purpose of them existing for entertainment. Those in favour of zoos would argue instead that the entertainment factor of zoos is a good thing, as it brings joy to children and families. Also, they are often cheaper than safaris and offer a more intimate encounter with animals than say documentaries. This intimacy may also help foster a more empathetic relationship between humans and animals, leading to people possibly being more likely to contribute to conservation efforts to protect animals’ habitats.

This point links to the other main function of zoos, in helping to care for animals. Those in favour of zoos argue that they offer sanctuary for endangered species, as well as for sick and injured ones. Those against zoos argue that sanctuaries exist for this very purpose, where the emphasis is on the animal and not the customer, like in zoos. Also, surely it would be better for conservation, to protect the animals’ natural habitat, as opposed to moving them away from this? Opponents of zoos also argue that they are often not about conservation, because the animals in them are not endangered a lot of the time; plus many animals that are no longer needed are put down.

The third main function of zoos is as places where we can learn about animals and this actually is a reflection of the original reason why zoos were created. Zoos in their modern sense came about in the 18th century due to enlightenment values that stressed an interest in sciences such as zoology and anatomy. For example, Zoos have been used in the past to test how self conscious animals are, whether they can make choices or even if they can be trained to use sign language. However, opponents of zoos ask what we can actually learn about animals when they are not in their natural habitat, and where their reactions to stimuli may be exclusive to zoos, making the research flawed or at least not representative of how animals act in the wild.

To conclude I think that zoos should not be banned, because they offer humans an intimate relationship with animals that makes us more likely to protect them. We are very curious creatures, and I think that by allowing us to humour this curiosity, zoos by how close they let us get to animals, spark an interest in the welfare of animals. If you love a panda that you see at the zoo, you're much more likely to want to protect it from going extinct. Just think about how much we love dogs in the west because we have intimate relationships with them, yet in say south korea they do not have this culture and eat dogs. That’s my opinion on why zoos shouldn’t be banned, if you disagree feel free to tell me why in the comments section.

Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/...