Has anyone ever read Yann Martel's Life of Pi?
There's a fascinating contradiction about contemporary perspectives of zoos and what the animals actually do while in a zoo. He says (and this is a fictional book--I'm not a zoologist by any account. I just think it's interesting if it's true) that animals in the wild don't do anything different from animals in the zoo. They mark their territory and that territory becomes their home. That's what animals do in a zoo. And are perfectly content to do so. Which makes me think about the slide on zoo-animals in a prison. I'm waiting for the slide show to open on my computer so give me a minute.
3 comments:
Yes, I've read that! I'm glad you mentioned it, I hadn't made the connection in my head till you said something. It definitely isn't meant to look that way...it just makes me wonder how much of my sympathy is me being manipulated, you know?
I always think of that book whenever I hear people argue against zoos. I'm also not a zoologist but on top of what you mentioned I think Pi also says that the animals are perfectly safe in the zoo and not constantly fighting for their life. Their is definitely some very interesting (and maybe digressive) arguments to be made for and against zoos.
I have read Yann Martel's Life of Pi as well. I think that this idea would definitely have an impact on the way PETA would approach zoos. However, PETA is probably too set in their ways to look at the situation rationally. They have anthropomorphized animals too much. Don't get me wrong, I value all life, and the manner in which it is lived can certainly have an impact of that life. However, if animals do not behave or act any differently inside or outside of zoos, then I see no evidence that change is necessary with the exception of abuse. It all depends on the degree of impact on the life, if the impact is substantial, then perhaps something should be done to improve its quality. However, if the impact is menial, then I see no argument on the side of PETA against zoos. This is in the territory of ethics and morals, which I believe have some impact on agency and authorship. The drive behind PETA's position comes from their emotional and rationalized perspective on zoos. The opposition comes from a different emotional and rationalized perspective. I guess the simple statement would be that it all depends on the various influences both sides have received and the reactions they had to them. The manner in which evidence is presented for or against is somewhat inadequate, if not presented from a universal perspective. Whew...Peace!
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.