Highly intelligent animals in captivity - yes/no? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

Here's a topic near and dear to my heart, brought on by the upcoming doco The Cove (go see it).

So basically, do you agree with the keeping of highly intelligent animals, in zoos, homes or otherwise, captive for any reason? If so or not, why?

Arguments pro:
- education of the public about the animal
- exposure of the species to conservation efforts; genetic "safeholds" (though the effectiveness of captive breeding programs in ensuring unbiased genetic sampling is uncertain)
- ability of charismatic intelligent animals to act as ecological ambassadors, enabling the rest of the animals in their ecosystem to benefit from the protection that comes from raising awareness
- captive conservation of the species if it is rare

Arguments con:
- ethical concerns of keeping an intelligent animal captive, which depends on the animal (i.e. wide-ranging animals such as dolphins kept confined to small tanks)
- is sufficient stimulation provided? (I.e. big cats becoming neurotic in captivity)
- anecdotal evidence that some animals are smart enough to become depressed in captivity -> death (i.e. suicide of Hugo the orca; otherwise, depressed animals often just stop eating)

Possible species under consideration:
- Primates of hominini tribe
- Cetaceans
- Cephalopods (particularly ocotopi)
- Certain parrot species
- Elephants

 

[Uncle]

If such animals are proven to be intelligent then captivity may not be necessary.

Psychologists have been known to train and induct chimpanzees and other primates into their families and were able to adapt over a short amount of time and even communicate in many non-verbal ways.
However keeping animals away from captivity still requires constant observation.
Captivity is an option but does not have to be the primary option.

I'm talking about animals being part of scientific experiments.
In particular, linguistic and psychological studies and the interaction of animals with humans through other forms such as figures.

 

[Kwayera]

Oh yes, science can certainly be performed in situ (in the wild), but certain things - for instance, cognitive and behaviour trials - certainly require a degree of control (i.e. captivity) for the research to be applicable.

I was more talking for recreational purposes (i.e. zoos, pets, etc.)

 

[Tangent]

Depends if the pet is happy

 

[Kwayera]

Again, I'm not talking about common pets (cats, dogs, horses, even most birds) - just the generally highly intelligent animals that are placed in captivity. The only one that could really qualify for "pet" status is the octopus and parrots, actually, as far as I can tell.

Happiness is also difficult to define, too, especially with highly intelligent animals.

 

[Tangent]

I'm pretty much against all zoos, because though the standards can be quite good, the habitat is quite small and depressing. The fact that people are googling at you all day is also another bad point.

Leave em in the wild, unless they are already in captivity

 

[Riet]

captivity is better than extinction.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think the pros outweigh the cons. With some conditions that a large zoo is better than a small one and that a circus may be unacceptable.

 

[Cookie182]

Perhaps life isn't that great for those animals high on the food chain- ie the big cats and largely defensive animals like elephants, primates

However, life is certainly far better for anyone lower- have a chat to the gazel who now doesn't have to worry about being eaten.

 

[Iron]

I reject the proposition that a supposedly intelligent animal has more worth than a supposedly less intelligent animal. Go unplug the life-support systems of those dreadful brain-damaged persons in hospital, go cop a beating from your fascist overlords, kway

 

[Silver Persian]

I reject the proposition that a supposedly intelligent animal has more worth than a supposedly less intelligent animal. Go unplug the life-support systems of those dreadful brain-damaged persons in hospital, go cop a beating from your fascist overlords, kway

Um. Aren't humans allowed to exploit the animal world for their own benefit?

Like, if you read the Bible and stuff.

 

[Iron]

Yeah i dont really care about animals m8. The premise of this thread is that humans arent anything special and are no different, really, to humans. Kway thinks that intelligence is what gives any living being its value, not humanity. It's this murky, relativist line in which humans are only one contender. This is a Nazi value and she should accordingly be hanged

ps i find asians less agreeable than europeans, so i propose asian captivity

 

[Silver Persian]

Yeah i dont really care about animals m8. The premise of this thread is that humans arent anything special and are no different, really, to humans. Kway thinks that intelligence is what gives any living being its value, not humanity. It's this murky, relativist line in which humans are only one contender. This is a Nazi value and she should accordingly be hanged

ps i find asians less agreeable than europeans, so i propose asian captivity

Well what does make humans different from animals? (I am assuming this is what you meant, since the sentence "The premise of this thread is that humans arent anything special and are no different, really, to humans." makes no sense. Tsk)

 

[Iron]

it's saturday gay
Man is made in God's image. I know u know this. Ive peered into ur soul m8

 

[Silver Persian]

it's saturday gay
Man is made in God's image. I know u know this. Ive peered into ur soul m8

What does that even mean? That we look like God? That we have a similar character to God? The first answer is retarded; the second answer seems to contradict almost everything that Christianity stands for.

And why should either of these options be associated with a greater moral right to avoid pain/entrapment/misery?

 

[Iron]

Because man is bestowed a certain dignity and ability to distinguish right from wrong, which is denied to the beasts.

 

[Tangent]

What is right, and what is wrong?

And people who do not know right from wrong, are they animals?

 

[Kwayera]

Because man is bestowed a certain dignity and ability to distinguish right from wrong, which is denied to the beasts.

Science would disagree with you.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

 

[Iron]

Living by any code =/= living by a universally true one

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Living by any code =/= living by a universally true one

You sneaky bugger.