All of these people are scheming something comically devious.
no they’re not
👉👈
Williamina Dafoe in the back there in particular.
I can hear it now
“nyeh heh heh heh heh…”
Wouldn’t the better solution be to simply not turn gorillas into a public attraction?
Generating awareness and sympathy is probably the biggest factor in keeping many endangered species alive
Another lie of capitalism. Species don’t have inherent value, individuals of a species do. Which is why bad treatment of those individuals can’t be justified by appealing to the species’ survival. It’s about money, like everywhere else.
… What. I don’t even know where to start with that. Ecological conservation is about money?
Zoos are about money.
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world? Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.
Crappy “documentaries” ain’t it by the way. Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild. Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?
They shouldn’t.
Which is obviously critical in making people care about protecting it.
Where is the evidence for that?
Not to mention that zoos also serve a secondary function in providing for rescue animals, and animals otherwise unable to live in the wild.
This doesn’t require the animals to be put on display.
Zoos are not perfect, but are very clearly the best compromise for fostering interest in our wonderful nature in future generations, who probably won’t even encounter a horse or cow in real life otherwise.
Or we could stop destroying the natural habitats of those animals instead of making a profit with the remaining individuals.
Do you need evidence that most people have a hard time being invested in something entirely abstract which they will never interact with for their whole life? Something they only ever saw in school books? Which is what animals would be for a massive part of the population.
Kids nowadays at best interact with pets, they know the horses are what people rode in those old western movies and cows are what makes the milk in the carton from the grocery store. Chicken grows in nugget form.
And these are all domesticated animals, not at all exotic in most places around the world. How would they ever come into contact with all the other fascinating creatures we share our planet with? Develop a passion for their protection?
Well how else would you suggest people come in contact with the wildlife of this world?
By going to their habitats?
obviously critical in making people care about protecting it
No. Zoos are not critical in making people care about protecting wildlife.
Taking tourists into natural habitats is way more destructive than having a few specimens on display in artificial habitats.
Zoos are about money, yes. That’s not the point under discussion. I’m taking issue with the line ‘species don’t have inherent value’. You’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct as long as its done humanely.
ou’re basically saying it’s ok to drive species extinct
You should read my comment again. This is not what I am saying.
That’s certainly how it comes across when you claim species don’t have inherent value. Why would we bother to preserve and protect something that’s valueless? You may have meant something else, but judging by the downvotes nobody else is getting your intended meaning either.
Whey do you mean? We entirely dominate them, and transparently acknowledge all species on this planet are either our commercial resources, or our entertainment
If humans could put rainbows in a zoo they would.
Yes Hobbes.
Wait, a person came to a zoo every day and stared at a Gorilla?
How many days? Did this person just go to the zoo every single day and mean mug a gorilla?
Is this an anime plotline, a zoo employee, or is OP’s headline a bit misleading?
Zoo employees had previously warned her against doing this, but she continued, claiming a special bond with him: in an interview with De Telegraaf she said, “When I smile at him, he smiles back”.
If only I could have been that one employee who got to visit her in the hospital and whisper “told ya”.
Yeah that ain’t a ‘smile’ he was doing
They then moved the gorilla to a different city, and she followed the gorilla there and continued to stare at him. After he mauled her in the cafe, he just sat around peacefully and waited for the zookeepers to take him away.
Did he try the hot chocolate?
Why wouldn’t they just bar her crazy ass from the zoo.
Fun fact: This incident was huge news in The Netherlands and inspired the new term “bokito-proof,” meaning strong enough to withstand or contain a gorilla.
https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/bokitoproof Well well!
Don’t worry for gorilla, it still can get out.
From Wikipedia
The week after Bokito’s escape, a local health insurance company sponsored the production of 2,000 BokitoKijkers (“Bokito viewers”), paper visors which disguised the direction of the wearer’s gaze. The visors were designed by advertising agency DDB Amsterdam, and won a Bronze Lion for promotional material at the 2008 Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, and a Eurobest Silver at the 2007 Eurobest European Advertising Festival.
The word “bokitoproof”, meaning “durable enough to resist the actions of an enraged gorilla” and by extension “durable enough to resist the actions of a non-specific extreme situation” was voted the Word of the Year for 2007 in the Netherlands.
For those who didn’t read how obsessed the woman was, let’s just say there’s a good chance she might have been attracted to the gorilla 🦍
Good job Bokito. Don’t take anyones shit.
