this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
381 points (97.0% liked)

interestingasfuck

1226 readers
7 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
381
In 2007, after one of their gorillas, Bokito, escaped and attacked a women who stared at him every day, the Rotterdam Zoo started handing out glasses that tricked the gorillas to avoid stare (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokito_(gorilla)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes I'm well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There's more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

they can be mitigated

But not eliminated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You and I have different moral systems and you think that hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind, when I'm perfectly okay with causing a small harm in order to secure a much much greater good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind

I don't understand this part of your sentence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You keep bringing up that zoos cause harm. This seems to be a deal-breaker for you. It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after. In my view, it's acceptable to cause a small amount of harm, if you get significantly greater good from doing so. Of course the details matter, and I don't believe either of us would argue our position in every scenario, but in this case I find the manageable harm caused by zoos to be worth the increased interest in wildlife conservation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It seems your view is that if it's possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you're after.

It seems to me that we have different goals.

manageable harm

Obdurate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well wait, what's your goal? Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe get over the idea that human actions are needed in order to conserve the environment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, there are people out there who would destroy the environment if we just sat back and did nothing so.... Yeah gotta take action.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

LOL, we've got to hurt animals by imprisoning them and charging tickets for people to ogle at them, because otherwise bad people will do bad things. I see.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're not very good at thinking beyond immediate consequences, are you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You have no idea what I'm good or not good at. Nor could you from this very limited exchange. You just want to find a reason to dismiss what I've said so that you can remain unchallenged in your bubble where you're saving the world and other people are the problem.