Some people say they like animals more than they like humans because they had a bad personal experience with other humans. But, as a species, we tend to mix with other humans more than animals. And we form a close circle of human friends with whom we mix - rarely will we mix with "strangers", and keep it to friends of friends. Yes, we have pets, but we are able to form a bond with them. In the main, we form associations based upon our nationality - we have put our national interests before international interests, putting our own national good above that of the "common good". In relation to wildlife conservation, in England at least, society has put the focus upon our national wildlife - foxes, badgers, for example. In England, traditionally social attitudes towards zoos have been determined by national organisations and "Old Empire" attitudes. We exhibited animals from around the world as souvenirs - trophies - to show the world that we have a "global reach", a demonstration - one of many - of our strength as an international power. Although attitudes have begun to change over the past 30 years or so in favour of international wildlife conservation, will polar bears or giraffes - or even the anteater or armadillo - stand a chance unless we learn to "bond" with "Mother Nature" and not simply view wildlife conservation as a secondary part of Climate Change policy? What does it mean to from a bond with Nature? Are we afraid to talk about "Mother Nature" in the same breath as Nature Conservation, in case we are viewed as "hippies"? If there was a zoo or wildlife park within easy travelling distance of the majority of a country's population, would it encourage more people to spend more time learning about the animals we go see? Would spending more time at the zoo increase people's sympathy towards Nature, and inspire more people to campaign to save our planet? Who is more likely to form a bond with the animals they see - the woman, the man or the child? The mother, the father, or the son or daughter? The grandfather or the grandmother? To what extent do visitors regard the zoo or wildlife park as merely somewhere to go for a day out and will probably never visit for another five years? I'd like to engage in discussion with other members on this matter and welcome your reply, comment or criticism.
In my country of R. Macedonia (1.7 million people), with only 2 zoos (Skopje & Bitola), zoos are not on the first place when it comes to forming bonds with mother nature, since this country has really an outstanding natural beauty, mountains and rocky hills with breathtaking scenery, subtropical lakes of Ohrid (considered one of the oldest in the world), Prespa (with natural bird reserve ''Ezerani'') or Dojran lake, Mariovo region, and warm and sunny climate. Older people are always organising with buses to visit a remote (in a mountain) or well-known monastery (Jovan Bigorski, Treskavec, Sveti Naum, etc.), traveling through inspiring scenery, and almost never will visit the Skopje or Bitola zoo (these are nice zoos, that before 5-10 years were completely substandard). Also the national parks (Pelister, Galicica, Mavrovo) are more visited than zoos. Even I myself, a zoo lover, will only visit the national zoos once or twice yearly.
Zoos, biophylia and conservation I first visited a zoo in 1961, it was a school trip and one of the highlights of the year. I saw big cats and apes in heavily barred, concrete floored cages, and bears in pits where you looked down on the animals. The big cats paced back and forth and the bears showed stereotypic behaviours. The standards of animal welfare were below what we would expect today, and I never heard anyone question them. In the early 1960’s Chipperfield’s circus came to town. There was huge excitement when they paraded through the centre of Carmarthen, sequined girls on horses, elephants being led by their handlers and big cats in beast wagons. I can also remember the big show and seeing tigers jumping through flaming hoops and elephants balancing on two legs. Even though I would not appreciate some of these experiences today at the time they were deeply influential for both me and my friends we talked about them for weeks and I have remembered them for a lifetime. The messages that zoos were sending was that we could dominate and contain animals, and in circuses we could both dominate and control. The barrier was very much part of the message, - “the big dangerous animal is being safely caged”. Behavioural problems were common and largely unquestioned. In UK these standards and sentiments are no longer acceptable. Changes have happened gradually and are still occurring in response to a greater understanding of the animal’s requirements and also to the needs of the visitors. Increasingly it is being appreciated that humans need contact with wildlife for their emotional and psychological well-being, the phenomenon is now known as biophylia. Biophylia as an idea was first proposed by Erich Fromm, a very influential neo-Freudian psychoanalyst, in 1964, and later developed by Edward Wilson, in 1984. Both suggested that humans have a need to affiliate with other forms of life. In response to this we have seen an increasing trend in zoos towards greater intimacy between the animals and the public. This is expressed by an increasing trend towards bar-less enclosures, and we also see a craving by visitors for closer contact with animals. The development and popularity of Safari Parks (first in UK 1966) provided close contact with animals in large enclosures, apparently better meeting the requirements of both the animals and the visitors. There was also the development of Wildlife Parks in the 1960s and 1970s, which aimed to keep animals in large naturalistic enclosures. Zoos have followed in this tradition and it is now common to see animals kept in appropriate social groups in much larger planted enclosures. There are four main areas where zoos have responded to the public need for closer contact with animals; 1) increasing use of less obvious barriers, glass, electric fences, moats etc, 2) walk through enclosures, 3) using trained and tame animals and 4) having free-ranging animals. Most of these changes have been good for both animals and the public although the primary consideration has been the quality of the exhibit or display. Walk through enclosures. Walk through enclosures have become increasingly popular and there are lemur, fruit bat, Barbary macaque, wallaby and many bird and mixed species walk-through exhibits. The concept has been broadly modified, so many enclosures have walkways through them, and many large aquariums have clear acrylic tunnels that go through their tanks giving an illusion of being a walk-through. This is an area that is constantly being developed. The large mixed-species walk-through aviaries have become very popular and meet many of the needs of the public, but not always those of the birds. Many become dumping grounds for surplus or odd animals. It can be difficult to manage species in these enclosures, and it is often required to have off show breeding facilities just to provide birds for exhibit. The large mixed species walk through aviary typically has no direct conservation purpose. Walk-through exhibits can be effective for conservation breeding only if the mix of species is carefully considered and the animals can be individually managed. The idea can however be developed and we can still have walk-through enclosures that are effective for breeding species. Aviaries that hold just a few breeding pairs can have walkways through them without affecting the birds. They soon learn that the visitors do not leave the path. Trained animals. At the same time we have seen the expansion in the use of walk through exhibits we have the increasing use of trained animals. These have always been a feature of zoos (elephant rides, chimp tea-parties), but there has been an increasing trend, to show natural behavior, and it is no longer acceptable in UK to have circus style acts or parrots on bicycles. The public enjoy the close contact with the animals and in some cases are allowed to handle them. Training has also become a major part of animal management in both the wild and in the zoo. In collections we are increasingly training animals to undergo various procedures. We also habituate and modify behavior in reintroduction projects, habituating animals to accept supplemental food, teach them to enter catch up cages, and also by training them to be relaxed around people. As a result of training the animals in reintroduction and long term-management projects, can be shown to the public with the animals often readily accepting the presence of visitors. Animals at liberty. Keeping animals at liberty in the zoo grounds is a well established practice, it is popular with the public and improves the quality of the animal’s life. Many zoos have free-ranging peafowl, ducks, wallabies and mara. These however usually serve no useful purpose other than to entertain and amuse the public. Hence the long term trend in zoos is to soften the barriers between the public and the animals and to allow a more intimate experience. How this is achieved is still being debated although we can clearly see the trend. People want to experience animals at the interface between captivity and the wild. The challenge that faces us is how do we develop the zoo to meet the changing and increasingly sophisticated needs of the public, and the conservation needs of the animals?
Education I think is the cornerstone that is often unappreciated within most education systems with regard to the natural world. Consider how many people make it to adulthood without even a basic understanding of different plant, animal or insect life; to say nothing of aquatic life as well. Pond dipping and nature walks feature as part of pre-school activities but are never taken much further in most schools. Bits are done, of course, but it tends to be processes such as photosynthesis or food webs and the like. As a result you get people with a rough understanding of some natural processes but not as much awareness of the natural world; and of course those education centres based more so in urban areas can suffer even worse as there's less casual interaction as well. When you've people who show natural interest in the natural world even into adulthood based on such a sketchy and light background in education in it you know that its got to be something important to most people. The problem is that most nations treat it very much as a luxury. IF you want to you can follow it; but otherwise you won't be introduced nor educated in it much. The result is a large population with a desire but no actual understanding to base their actions upon. Back to zoos for a moment and the rise in tactile and interactive enclosures and events makes perfect sense. We learn far more and build a far bigger association when we get to interact with something; even if its just to touch/stroke/hold. It builds a realistic connection that isn't disconnected as viewing is. The bird ringers around where I am often do displays as they work ringing and when kids get to release a bird from the process they hold it in their hand for only a few moments (under supervision); but those few moments builds an experience and memory that will far outlast just seeing bird ringing taking place. They become involved; they are part of it and got to hold a bird that otherwise they might only see (or might never see for many small elusive birds).
A zoo is not the first place I would think of to, "bond with mother nature". I would more than likely take a hike thru the woods or mountians, take a boat down a river or thru the swamps, watch a herd of deer graze, sit on a beach and watch the sunrise/sunset, lay in an open field in the middle of the night looking at the stars and listining to all the night sounds, etc. There is nothing "natural" about a zoo. The entire place is artifically created (for the most part). The reality is that zoos hold wild, captive animals that have adapted to life in artificial enclosures designed to represent their natural enviorment and controlled by humans. The experience is not the same when looking at a bear in a zoo with all the safety and security features in place, compared to meeting one on the trail with nothing but a small tree between you and the bear. I know from personal experience. Don't get me wrong, I love zoos. I think they play a necessary, vital role in wildlife education and conservation. They provide an opportunity to see and learn about animals from all over the world that most people would never know about if zoos didn't exsist. I just wouldn't consider it a place to, "bond with mother nature". Perhaps others would.
Regarding the trend of an increasingly urban population being disconnected from nature, there was a book several years ago on this exact topic. It is called Last Child in the Woods, though I never read it myself. Perhaps a good way for zoos to connect people to nature is to offer more field trips (I know some zoos do this). They could provide transportation to a nearby state or national park (or other nature center) so members who wouldn't normally visit can have a chance.
Going off of this, it's much easier to access information nowadays. Zoos having interactive enclosures and events are a way to offer an experience that can't be replicated through reading a book or watching a documentary. (or even seeing the animals in the wild, for people who have that option) Yeah, obviously I love zoos but it feels too human and artificial to really feel like I'm "bonding" with nature. Because it's not nature, at least not entirely. It's more like a museum, the goal is more to learn, it can't fully replicate the "experience".
Perhaps I should have explained what I believe "bonding with Mother Nature" to mean? I believe it means viewing Earth as one single living entity, where all life and vegetation is dependent on each other, where a balance is maintained through the natural process of renewal and birth and death. I believe it means viewing our place on the planet differently to how many of us have viewed it for centuries. In other words, humans are not necessarily the most intelligent species on this planet. There are other species, in my opinion, which are as intelligent as humans - perhaps when we consider the destructive nature of humans, we might say that some species are more intelligent than humans. Increasingly, scientists are learning how different species work together for their mutual good. Is this not a sign of higher intelligence? Many put it down to Instinct and that wildlife cannot think for itself, cannot reason and debate and make choices - that they are controlled by their environment. But, as we are increasingly astounded by what we learn, is it not possible that one day we will either learn or realise - or accept - that some species at least, are capable of independent reasoning to achieve their goals? The theory of Evolution is one which is biased and assumes that humans are at the top of the evolutionary chain. Is this not a theory that was written and propagated by a nation - England - in order to justify its invasion or conquest of the planet? Wasn't it the case that the classification of the human species was also developed around the same time, which stated that some humans were in fact part of a sub-species, in order that a minority could be classed as humans - ie white, Anglo-Saxon of aristocratic breeding? (Although this last theory was ridiculed later on, at the time (19th century) it was regarded seriously by the scientific and political communities in England. This same minority upheld the theory of Evolution in order to have supreme governance of the planet. Humans like to think that they can control the planet. We are destroying the planet and we seek to save the planet, but we will not change our insatiable appetite to do this? Will we destroy the planet before we have time to save it? We cheat our system when we have "carbon offset" - we abrogate our responsibility. We tinker with Mother Nature as a child who is playing with a toy. We drive in our polluting cars to the zoos and wildlife parks to learn about how we can help in Nature Conservation. Our political leaders give conflicting messages about what is good and what is bad, about what is the right approach and what is the wrong approach. If it is not the zoos and wildlife parks where people are to learn about Nature Conservation and to bond with Mother Nature - not just to appreciate better - but to learn how to take action to save the polar bears, the giant otters, the giraffes, to learn about their place on the planet, then where?
@Brian Day: In that case, no. I do not believe zoos are somewhere to stand on a soapbox and preach New Age nonsense.
I'm sorry you feel that this is "New Age nonsense" which I write, but the First Nations of Canada have believed in the importance of Mother Earth for thousands of years and continue to believe that we need to have a relationship with Nature (or "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth") and realise that it is the Earth which sustains us. Please see Assembly of First Nations - Honouring Earth to understand the Assembly of First Nations viewpoint and how it is working closely with the Canadian government on environmental issues. There is no soapbox and there is no New Age nonsense. If the Canadian government is on board with the First Nations of Canada, why shouldn't zoos and wildlife parks learn from tradition? After all, Yorkshire Wildlife Park is half-way there already by its work with Polar Bears International in recognising that the polar bear population is an indicator for climate change. As regards intelligence of species and Evolution, these are my own personal thoughts based upon my own studies and certainly not New Age.
This discussion thread is certainly becoming "interesting." Now that I am a moderator, I will be watching it closely to see where it goes...
@Brian Day: To return to your previous post: evolution was neither proposed, nor continues to be propagated, as a clandestine plot to prop up the British Empire (although thanks for the implication that I'm a racist). Although most early advocates sadly took this position, Darwin himself notably avoided it. Unlike, say, Ernst Haeckel's anthropocentric evolutionary tree, the version in The Origin of Species was careful to give each lineage equal weight. Despite your assertions to the contrary, then, homocentrism is categorically not inherent to evolutionary theory. It wasn't in the 19th century, and it's sure as hell not now. Long story short, I didn't call your post "nonsense" as a knee-jerk response to our clashing worldviews; I called it "nonsense" because it's repeatedly factually incorrect. On evolution, on the Lovelockian notion of "Mother Earth" (what scientists? what species?), on intelligence (are humans really alone in their tendency to self-destruct through self-interest?), and so on. However, I apologise if my forthrightness came across as rude and I'll be sure to read the link you provided when I have more time.
Social Darwinism, advanced by Herbert Spencer, evolved from Darwinism, and put forward the argument for the survival of the fittest. This idea was used to justify English government policy of laissez-faire - non-interference in society and the economy. Why help the weak because they will always be weak? The British elite did not have to plot clandestinely because they ruled unopposed. They advocated elitism openly and, for a time, many Victorian elite were in favour of Social Darwinism and the theory of Eugenics - selective breeding - which evolved. For evidence to support my argument, follow the link to an article published by the British Library, Post Darwin: social Darwinism, degeneration, eugenics
In England, I would argue that the disengagement with the science began in the 19th century with the increasing professionalisation of academic study and the increasing marginalisation of the "amateur scientist", the large sector of Mechanics and industrialists. The professional academics dominated as an Anglican elite - prohibiting the lower socioeconomic class of non-Conformist Christians. Even when restrictions had been removed, the writing was on the wall for the average man or woman. The 20th century saw a continuation of the dominant universities over science and the everyday working man had no real say. It wasn't until after the Second World War that more and more average members of society took an active role in civil society development and the pursuit of science, esp natural history.
The history of eugenics doesn't make your ideas any less nonsensical. However, since you've apparently changed your position from the first post ("Is this not a theory that was written [...] in order to justify its invasion or conquest of the planet?"), I'm happy.
Oh come on, was Pythagoras a pig? When an animal can beat me at chess or badminton and buy me a pint afterwards I'll reconsider your notion. I'm not saying I'm superior to animals (and they're definitely superior to me in some things) but to claim they are as or more intelligent than humans is getting a little silly. Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Bill Hicks once said we're a virus with legs. I'd agree with that, to some extent, but that doesn't mean we're not intelligent.
Yes, I touched on this briefly, but I think it's worth reiterating. The notion that humans alone harm their collective interests through efforts to maximise personal gain ("the tragedy of the commons") is a widely-pedalled fantasy. In fact, evolutionary game theory states that every individual of every species should act this way (more or less). It really has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm still waiting for @Brian Day to tell me who these "scientists" are that say otherwise.
Animals are very smart. They adapt to their environment. While it is true that there are winners and losers in Nature, animals and birds sometimes work together. Have you heard of the Honeyguide bird? It is a bird which calls humans through its whistle and guides them to where there is a rich food source - honey. In return, the humans leave some honey for the bird to enjoy? Is this not a sign of intelligence? The bird communicates, watches and waits for the human to catch up. See the link How humans and wild birds collaborate to get precious resources of honey and wax and I would argue this is one sign of intelligence and there are other examples of different species working in partnership.
I'm not disagreeing that animals can show intelligence, they obviously can, just that they're not as or more intelligent than humans (your original claim).
