Dale Jamieson, "Zoos Revisited" (1995)
- HISTORY OF ZOOS
- Zoos originally demonstrated and celebrated the domination of nature by
man
- Then zoos became urban amusement and entertainment
- Today, most zoos serve this purpose
- Best zoos today aim at species preservation
- (Claim to be) Last best hope for endangered wildlife
- Environmental heroes who preserve species, do scientific research
and are the guardians of wild nature
- More like parks (and parks become more like zoos)
- Why is zoos' educational function missing in this list of the evolution of
zoos?
- Perhaps because Jamieson thinks the main thing zoos teach is that it is
okay for humans to dominate animals, and he sees that as miseducation
- PRESUMPTION AGAINST KEEPING ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY
- Captivity restricts their liberty (freedom) by preventing them from gathering
own food, developing their own social order and engaging in their full range
of natural behaviors
- Burden of proof is thus on zoo defenders (to show such captivity is
permissible)
- Argument for this presumption
- If no such presumption, then it would be a matter of moral indifference
(morally irrelevant) if animals were kept captive or not; might as well flip a
coin
- Jamieson thinks this is highly implausible
- Jamieson suggests that it is unclear how strong this presumption is
- But he says things that suggest he thinks it is quite strong
- E.g., he thinks placing them in captivity wrongs them and we owe
them compensation
- LEAHY'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST SUCH A PRESUMPTION AND
JAMIESON'S RESPONSES
- Leahy: Animals have no language, hence not self-conscious, hence can't
make choices, so don't live their own lives, so not free
- Jamieson reply
- But some animals do have language (various primates and cetaceans
use complex symbol systems)
- Lots of evidence for self-consciousness in animals: social play,
deception and vigilance
- False that self-consciousness necessary for making choices
- Is self-consciousness required when we chose coffee over tea?
- Researchers have studied animal choice of mates, habitats and
nest sites; why assume they are mistaken in assumption animals
are choosing?
- Leahy: Animals are not truly free in wild as nature limits their freedom
- In nature animals "are constrained by ecological and social pressures and
struck down by natural predation and disease"
- Because they live longer and are happier in zoos, animals are
freer in zoos than in wild
- Jamieson reply:
- This is like saying people are freer in prisons as get three meals a day
- Whole point of system of confinement is to deprive individuals of
liberty
- Living longer or being happier is not same as being free
- Further, not clear that animals in zoos do live longer or are happier
- Because captive-bred animals never known freedom they suffer no loss in
confinement
- Jamieson reply: Keeping such animals captive is even more tragic as
never experienced freedom
- Many zoo animals who have been bred in captivity would never survive
in wild
- Jamieson reply: This would not show there is no presumption against
keeping animals in captivity but rather that our concern for these
animals' welfare outweighs the presumption against captivity
- But if animal welfare concerns can outweigh presumption against
captivity for zoo bred animals, then the argument could also be
raised about animals living in the wild (whose welfare might
arguably be increased in captivity-health care, length of life,
contentment)
- Do Jamieson's views have implications for pet ownership?
- JAMIESON'S CRITICISMS OF THE SPECIES PRESERVATION
JUSTIFICATION FOR ZOOS
- Zoos are not wild nature
- Can't save wild nature by bringing it indoors
- We must preserve the land, not bring nature indoors
- Only hope of preserving wild nature is setting aside large tracts of
land and altering our present environmentally unfriendly lifestyles
- Zoos don't preserve wild species
- Only tiny fraction of endangered species preserved in zoos
- But are these the ones we care about?
- Most attempts at reintroduction fail; they are not like Noah's Ark
because they do not release the species
- "Zoos are species last stop on way to extinction"
- Preserving species in zoo is a cruel hoax: "This is what used to
exist in the wild"
- Zoos can't preserve wild species (but only semi-domesticated ones)
- Animals preserved in zoos will evolve to be different than their wild
ancestors
- So even if we could put them back in the wild it would not be same
type of animal that has evolved in wild
- "Role of captive breeding/reintroduction in preservation of endangered
species is marginal and can't overcome presumption against keeping
animals in captivity"
- It is a techno fix mentality to the problem of destruction of wild nature
- Rather than changing our lifestyles, we carry on with them and try to
solve the problem with species preservation technology
- JAMIESON'S SKEPTICISM ABOUT SPECIES CONCEPT AND
OBLIGATIONS TO SPECIES
- Species is only one mark of biological variability
- Darwin and others (including Jamieson) think species is somewhat of an
arbitrary division in the spectrum of biological diversity
- Duties to species (in contrast to the individuals in them) do not make sense,
for species have no heart/lungs, no interior (there is nothing it is like to be a
species), no welfare that we could benefit
- Jamieson is a sentio-centrist (only individual sentient animals have moral
standing) and so he is likely to be opposed to any efforts at species
preservation (whether using zoos or not) that harm individual animals.
- CONCLUSION
- Zoos are for us, not for the animals
- They alleviate our guilt, but don't really help
- We owe animals in captivity everything:
- Zoo animals are refugees from a
holocaust that humans unleashed against nature
- If we are to keep them in captivity we must conform to the highest
standard of treatment and respect
- Should not even consider culling these animals or trading off their
interest against human interests