Awakening from the Nightmare of Zoos

I've had plenty of conversations about why most zoos maybe aren't such a good thing, about what they symbolize, what they mean about who we are as a people and a culture.  But until I read Thought to Exist in the Wild: Awakening from the Nightmare of Zoos by Derrick Jensen and with photography by Karen Tweedy-Holmes, I hadn't really explored that symbolism and sense of concern in any depth.  And to that end, the book is a thought-provoking and eye-opening treatment of the subject.  Here's my review.

I have a lot of memories of visiting zoos as a younger person.  There was the time my Boy Scout troop had an overnight stay at the Cincinnati Zoo, where we had behind-the-scenes tours of the habitats and infrastructure that made up the place; I was amazed at the intricate facades created for zoo visitors.  Another summer at the same zoo and I'm about to start drinking my red cream soda during a field trip lunch break, when a bird poops directly into it from a tree overhead.  I remember feeling frustration and resentment that this creature had invaded my personal space so - now I laugh at the irony of that resentment, felt so strongly against one who was just answering the call of this artificial shrine to come observe animal life, poop and all.  And most recently, standing with my nose and right hand pressed up against the glass at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, apologizing to the once-grand and beautiful Gorillas on display there for the noisy people, the cheesy layout of the captivity, the life stolen from them.  "I'm so sorry," I mouthed.  "Please forgive us."

I've had plenty of conversations about why most zoos maybe aren't such a good thing, about what they symbolize, what they mean about who we are as a people and a culture.  But until I read Thought to Exist in the Wild: Awakening from the Nightmare of Zoos by Derrick Jensen and with photography by Karen Tweedy-Holmes, I hadn't really explored that symbolism and sense of concern in any depth.  And to that end, the book is a thought-provoking and eye-opening treatment of the subject.

Derrick Jensen, if you haven't already read his other work, writes and talks extensively on the destructive nature of modern culture.  His works like A Language Older than Words, The Culture of Make Believe, and Endgame Volume 1 and Volume 2) are epic investigations into the many ways in which Jensen sees humans chipping away at the very foundations of life on Earth.  Of primary concern to Jensen (from personal, ecological, moral perspectives alike) is the need to live in a world where non-human creatures are not sacrificed or imprisoned for the benefit of human creatures.  It's no surprise, then, that he sees the institution of zoos and zoo-keeping as one of the most clearly harmful results of the human tendency to subjugate other life-forms for our own purposes, or out of a sense of god-like dominion and responsibility:

When we see it is not true that zoos rescue animals, that animals are better off in zoos than in the wild, than in their own homes; when we realize that zoos do not teach us about wild animals but that instead they teach us to misperceive animals entirely, that they reinforce the flattering and absurd (as well as lonely) perception that humans are separate from and superior to all other animals; when we know that zoos are prisons; when we see that zoos are big business amusement parks attempting to pass as anything but what they are; when we say out loud that by subduing, capturing, and imprisoning those who are wild (then saying it is for their and our benefit) zoos are tangible manifestations of the mindset and processes that are killing the planet...zookeepers and their supporters fall back one more time, to their final argument: through captive breeding programs, zoos are vital to the recovery of endangered species. --p.129-130

As with his other books, Jensen seems to write out of a place of extreme anger and disgust, of urgency and necessity, and of hope for the future.  His narrative is often quite personal, including stories of his direct experiences with zoos and animal captivity, and interspersing bits of insight about the spaces and times from which he is writing in with the essay itself.  But he does not rest on intuitive conclusions, citing an extensive bibliography with almost as many endnotes as there are pages.  

He makes comparisons of zoos to pornography ("wanting to see animals when you want to see them, without being willing to work for their habitat and not get upset when they 'poop all over the place' is like wanting to have sex with someone without being willing to do what is necessary for the other person to want to spend that sort of time with you"),  talks about the rationalizations that zoos are making use of funds that would not otherwise be available for wildlife conservation (quoting Mike Seidman, saying "Such is the depth of our love of nature -- that we will gladly donate vast sums to keep animals in elaborate cages but not to let them live wild."), and tries in earnest to answer the question of how we can let our children encounter wild animals without zoos.   All of this creates a text that is at once emotionally engaging and academically broad.

And then there are the photos.  Karen Tweedy-Holmes visited zoos around the country and captured not just the shots you might expect - an animal behind bars looking out at the "free" world - although there are plenty of those.  She also shows plenty of animals without any visible sign of imprisonment around them, but who are clearly broken, with a demeanor that looks unnatural, eerie, out of place.  She shows us animals on display for happy, pointing humans, surrounded by the "nightmares of concrete and steel, iron and glass, moats and electrified fences" that Jensen holds up over and over as an abomination.

I'm wondering if Thought to Exist in the Wild might be somewhat jarring for someone who hasn't read Jensen before.  A lot of his lines of thought are based on premises explored in his other books, and while you don't necessarily need to know what they are or even agree with them to find meaning in this book, I think he assumes that you do have that context and his writing style reflects it.

I'm not writing this review of Jensen's book because it put me on a crusade to abolish animal captivity - at least for me, it often only crystallized or clarified thoughts and feelings I already had about the phenomenon of zoos.  But it did that well, and I do think it is an interesting exploration of the subject -- certainly worthy of your time if you care to think about the relationships that humans have to other forms of life, and what zoos represent in those relationships.

•  Thanks for this

  thought-provoking diary. I visited a zoo in Prague one summer, and I was torn up by how miserable the animals appeared to be, in their small cages, with no attempt to recreate anything like their natural habitat.

  I used to live within walking distance of the San Diego Zoo, and I've often thought that the animals seem much better off there, in the relatively spacious, open exhibits... but maybe I was just comforting myself...

  by virgomusic on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:57:18 PM PDT

  •  No, the San Diego zoo is one of the best.

    Enough space, and appropriate natural surroundings, make a huge difference to the quality of life of the animals.  Still, there are some animals that can't really be given appropriate settings in a zoo.

    by Fiona West on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:20:03 AM PDT

•  Thank you so much Chris,

  I couldn't agree with you more.  The resources spent on zoo breeding of endangered species, who will be hard up to be re-introduced into the wild, given their upbringing, would so much better be spent on habitat protection, and education of our populace on their uniqueness, and the endless things we can learn for ourselves by studying them - to pick up on nature's themes and agenda.

  We just compartmentalize everything nowadays into minor competing issues - and NO ONE wins as all "reputable" experts pit themselves against each other, trying to prove that THEIR truth is THE truth.

  Disclaimer:  I'm the program director of a bird of prey education program myself.

  Five non-releasable birds (impacted by human activities and no longer able to survive in the wild), have been "adopted" by me to educate others close-up about their beauty and their needs.

  They were chosen carefully - most of the wild injured raptors are not suited for life in captivity.  Those that are with us are treated like family, given space, respect, and interactions on THEIR terms until they, on their own, agree to become wildlife ambassadors.

  There ARE ways to work with individual victims of conflicts with humans, and we CAN establish trust between individuals of a wild species and ourselves, but it's hard work, and zoos are not the answer.

  by Gabriele Droz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:59:08 PM PDT

  •  These kinds of educational programs are so

    important.  It's wonderful to hear about your careful and respectful interactions with these birds.

    YOu say that most injured raptors "are not suited" for life in captivity. Does this go by species, or by individual?  

    by Fiona West on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

•  From a different perspective

  I love zoos.  

  I won't feel guilty about it. Sorry. As a child zoos were experiences that I still look back fondly six decades later.  And to the degree I connected with these beasts, I feel protective, and support efforts that lead to their survival.

  The zoos of today are not the menageries of yore.  Often there is space for the full interaction among groups of a species.  The Bonobo habitat in the San Diego zoo is a good example with a dozen or so animals in a half acre setting.

  They interact and are comfortable enough to breed and raise their young.  And the humans often intervene to protect some of the infants that are rejected.  

  And there are few of our species who come every day to commune with their trans species friends. And they are greeted affectionately like the friends that they are--each to the other.

  I used to live near the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn, and often had time to visit during slow periods.  I watched a pride of lion cubs, from their first weeks until they got a little older.  At a point when I thought we were really close, they took a closer look and knew I wasn't one of them, and there was a snarling hiss that told me our relationship had changed.

  And then there was the Capucine monkey, who whenever I came too close would ball up some feces and throw it at me, right through the bars.  The attendant told me there used to be a worker, who had a mustache just like mine who tormented the poor thing, and I was the object of retribution.

  So, while I understand how zoos do exact a cost on the creatures who live there, like all things there is more to the story.  Our world would be poorer without the closeness, and bonding that can help our species transcend our own phylogenetic isolation.

  by arodb on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:09:59 PM PDT

  •  Good post

    Many modern zoos are totally different than the cages of the past. Although Jensen has a point about zoos, the same observations could be leveled against our small protected areas in the wild, like national parks and wilderness areas. Few of these protected areas are large enough to provide a wide enough range of habitat to secure the future health of many species.

    And with the impacts of global warming grinding down on us, no protected area is large enough to escape the consequences. The world has become a zoo.

    by Ed in Montana on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:03:05 AM PDT

•  Thanks.

  It sounds interesting.

  The idea of a world where no animals are ever sacrificed for our benefit is... well, I could only see that as desireable if and when we ever come to know everything there ever has been and ever will be to know in physiology, but anyway... it is a nice idea, even though the world would be slightly less tasty.

  I think the gentleman's ultimate point about using animals is wrong, but the proximal one about zoos is right. It sounds like a well thought out work, even if the intellectual foundations are ones I disagree with.

  In a world where intellectual development is so often frowned upon as elitism, it's nice to know that there are still people doing it.

  by Shaviv on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:11:17 PM PDT

•  get up to speed on the latest IPCC

  report on global warming. It's very possible that the last examples of various animals directly threatened by this (i.e. polar bears) are going to be either preserved in zoos or not at all.

  by alizard on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:32:17 PM PDT

•  The other thing that frustrates me about zoos

  is that they generally ignore local species and their plight.

  As a rehabilitator, I get calls from the local zoo about injured and orphaned wildlife found on their grounds - and they won't help them, as they have to quarantine everything for at least 30 days as to not endangering the "exotic" species they are hosting.

  In other words, as far as I can tell:  foreign species (considered in their own lands as pests) are to be protected, but local species in decline (because they are considered pests, yet presented at zoos in foreign contries as awesome animals)are to be denied protective status by these same zoos.

  I know this personally, as I have picked up dozens of baby Black-crowned Night Herons, a native species in decline in California.

  They have a nesting colony at our local zoo in the Eucalyptus grove behind the Elephant enclosure, bordering onto a wetland bird refuge.

  Each year, during their breeding season

  by Gabriele Droz on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:34:29 PM PDT

  •  I love black-crowned night herons

    There are three juveniles that I've seen hanging out on the river. They are incredibly neat and I've gotten some pictures of them, standing out in the rain to do so. I'm looking forward to seeing what they look like in their adult plumage.

    by elfling on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:29:11 PM PDT

•  excellent diary...

  which immediately made me think of this little film, by Nick Park, creator of Wallace and Grommit...

  by the holy handgrenade on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:59:00 PM PDT

•  zoos are vital for educational reasons

  I agree that zoos suck for animals, but we need them badly. When a kid has an emotional connection with a wild animal, it changes something deep inside forever. If we did not have zoos, donations to organizations that preserve habitat would plumet. It's not likely that urban and suburban kids will seek out a genuine wilderness experience on their own. But zoos... yes.

  by Lefty Mama on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:10:32 PM PDT

  •  Education can be accomplished without zoos

    I developed my own deep connection to animals in faraway places through television programs that filmed these wonderful and amazing beings in their natural habitats--from the black & white episodes of "Wild Kingdom" in the 1960s to the myriad of shows now available on cable 24/7.  We developed a similar appreciation for wildlife in our children by watching documentaries as a family and encouraging discussion and additional research.  Our kids now provide the same zoo-free educational experiences for their children.

    When I did finally visit a zoo, I was in my late 30s.  And even though it was considered a world-class facility (San Diego Zoo), I felt nothing but sadness for those creatures who had either been uprooted from their homelands or were born into captivity.  Although I hoped that others in the crowd shared my reverence for the animals, the majority of folks around me seemed only to be enjoying a day at a theme park, and I'm not sure their kids knew the difference between a trip to this high-tech zoo and a trip to Disneyland.  

    I don't have any information on the origin of funds donated for the preservation of wild animals and their habitats, but my guess is that the majority of donors are not the average visitors to zoos.

    Notwithstanding my experiences, I still thought that zoos were necessary--a case where the ends justified the means.  On reflection, I'm not so sure now.  And I appreciate this diary fueling my thoughts.

    by georgiacmt on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:41:39 PM PDT

    •  Yes and no

      I know what you mean, but I'm not sure I 100% agree.  Maybe it's different for all people, but watching something on TV doesn't give me anywhere near the same 'connectedness' as being in physical proximity, or even contact with another species.  I agree that going to a zoo can feel like going to a prison, but other times it's like going to a refugee camp.  Yes, it's horrid that it exists, but on the other hand, if it were me, I'd rather have the refugee camp than just be dead because somebody bulldozed my home for a shopping mall and put a parking lot over my garden.

      Ideally, animals should be where nature put them, not in zoos.
      But if we're going to continue to destroy their habitat now, I'd rather try and keep each species alive SOMEWHERE until such time as we get over our retarded view of ourselves as overlords of destruction who own the earth, and start rebuilding the habitats and restricting our unnecessary sprawl.  He calls it the 'final argument' - I'd call it the most important if not the only important argument.

      And while you can argue that many of the species we keep in zoo/prisons aren't endangered, I'd say... yet.  And now we're learning how to keep them alive and hopefully compfortable enough to breed in captivity, rather than waiting til they're on the brink of extinction and not knowing how to care for them.

      If we never do anything to repatriate the species into nature, then it's a horrible waste of the lives of the animals so imprisoned.  But if, just if, we do finally manage to become ecologically sensible, it may be the only way many species manage to survive the depredations of mankind, and the ones who survived life in zoos will be martyrs to their species future.

      by drbloodaxe on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:37:42 AM PDT

  •  I walk a middle path

    Some zoos and some zoo exhibits are horrible.

    Others I think can work very well.

    The animals need stimulation - a job to do, places to explore. Some have nowhere else to go.

    Some animals I think can do quite well in a zoo situation. Thoughtful keepers can make a difference. Money and land for a good habitat can make a difference. I encourage zoos to have fewer, but larger and better habitats, rather than trying to have a 'complete' collection. A zoo I particularly like is the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle.

    I send my daughter into a classroom every day, also not a natural environment. I do my best to ensure it's a good classroom. Some kids aren't so lucky.

    Getting plenty of food and protection from predators isn't always a bad deal. But they need to be respectful.

    Probably the worst thing I have ever seen was an opulent but tiny exhibit for tigers, with the crowning touch a glorious mural of happy tigers playing in the grass. I couldn't help but think that it was mocking the poor tigers, who had no grass and no place to run.
    

    by elfling on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:45:50 PM PDT

•  great diary, thanks for posting

  I was not familiar with this author but will be interested in checking out this and his other work

  diaries like this are the main reason I come here...this is the kind of "news I can use" that I don't often find anywhere else...thanks again

  by kittania on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:13:43 PM PDT

•  The Grizzly Discover Center

  in West Yellowstone was a place I came to loathe anything like a zoo. While the captive grizzlies were kept busy foraging for tidbits in their enclosure, the wolves lay about their much smaller afterthought of a "habitat", bored out of their minds. As I sat quietly on a bench next to their yard, this group of highly intelligent fellow creatures hardly pricked an ear at the noisy, disrespectful and ill-educated family who had come out to see them. After this group of howling loudmouths had gone back into the "center" to buy souvenir mugs, one of the wolves caught my eye. We looked unblinking at each other for a split moment in time, and then I looked away in shame.

  by crose on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:32:57 PM PDT

•  Wow...your first diary ever gets rescued,

  and you follow it up with something as solid as this - nicely done.  You should put up a comment (usually the author is given a bit of time to put up the first one) as a tip jar, so people can reward your excellent book reviews with positive mojo.

  by Unitary Moonbat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:32:28 PM PDT

  •  Thanks - is this my tip jar?

    Ummm yes, I will now post a comment here as my tip jar, as though I understand what all that means. :)

    I'm enough of a DK user to know I enjoy reading (and now posting) here, but apparently not enough to know how all the mojo transactions work.  I'll try to read more about that soon.

    Thanks all for reading and commenting!

    Chris

    by ChrisHardie on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:17:26 AM PDT

    •  excellent diary

      I'm grateful to you for writing it and to twilight falling for rescuing it. I'm glad you put up your tip jar later as the chance to reccomend the diary has expired.
      I used to love zoos as a child and have gotten progressively disenchanted with them since. Like crose, I had a moment where the essential wrongness of it became especially clear, and I will never go to another one willingly.
      That being said, closing every zoo in the world would not save most species, as they are in direct competition with human beings. The overpopulation of the earth has often given us the Hobbes' choice of deciding whether to support humans or competing species. The plight of the snail darter made right wingers roll their eyes, because it was obvious to them that human endeavor should be prioritzed over a lowly fish. Unfortunately that kind of decision has worked its way up the food chain to the polar bear.  

      by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:10:32 AM PDT

•  Heh...I saw a news article recently about

  some animals that kept ~leaving~ a zoo...I'll post it for you shortly, when I'm on my own machine.

  Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
    Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
  Tempest even in reason's seat.

  by GreyHawk on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:05:20 AM PDT

•  an important piece.

  Thank you for sharing this - your thoughts and the Jensen book. I have avoided zoos for years but always get strange looks from people if it comes up or I decline a chance to go to one.

  It started with realizing how bad the bad ones were. And then just feeling that even the "good" ones, with efforts to replicate habitat and give the animals more room, were morally wrong. They just make me want to cry.

  It's so helpful to find out that there are such cogent arguments out there about this, especially about the captive breeding programs whose resources would be better used preserving habitat.

  Vice harms the doer ~ Socrates

  by kdub on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:34:45 AM PDT

•  Replace "animal" with "refugee" and .....

  and write about how immoral it is to take them out of their habitat.

  Doesn't "Utopia" literally translate as "no place," and don't pretty much all attempts at creating Utopia end in death on grand scale, whether it's humans or animals?

  by bernardpliers on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:33:38 AM PDT

•  thanks Chris

  for posting this. I haven't heard of this book, but it looks like one I need for my animals and ethics collection.  Most people don't see the need to recognize animals as individuals, rather than just a representative of a species to be used as we see fit.  I bet the individual animals feel differently.  I like to give animals the benefit of the doubt and treat them as I would want to be treated, when I can.  

  Some animals may do okay in zoos, if they have evolved in ways that make them better suited for captivity, but animals like large carnivores, that normally range huge distances, or very intelligent animals such as primates and dolphins, do not belong in zoos, in my opinion.  

  by scrubjay on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:41:01 PM PDT

  •  “And then there are the photos.”

    Karen Tweedy-Holmes visited zoos around the country and captured not just the shots you might expect - an animal behind bars looking out at the "free" world - although there are plenty of those.  She also shows plenty of animals without any visible sign of imprisonment around them, but who are clearly broken...

    You can find animals in zoos who are broken.  You can also find animals who are healthy, active, and at home in their environment, even if concrete and moats are part of the environment.  To show both sides of the equation would have been more honest.

    You can’t just be for or against zoos.  A lot depends on the zoo.  And a lot depends on the animal.

    I empathize strongly with that moment when you apologized to the gorilla.  Gorillas should not be in zoos.   They are large, very complex, social animals who need more space and freedom of activity than zoos can give them, and they are badly stressed by having so many humans around.

    On the other hand, consider lion-tailed tamarins.  They’re small, beautiful, lively, tree-dwelling monkeys who were driven to extinction in the wild by destruction of their rain forest habitat.  In a zoo, they can be kept in indoor or outdoor enclosures that give them as much room as a family’s territory would encompass in the wild; they can be kept in family groupings, and breed and raise young.  If indoor enclosures are glassed, to cut down the noise, they are not much affected by the presence of people watching them.  

    Is it the same as the wild? No. But it has two compelling advantages.  One is that zoo breeding programs have saved the species and it has now begun to be re-introduced into the wild.  If Jensen regards zoo breeding programs as mere "rationalizations," as you seem to be indicating, he’s dead wrong.

    The second argument, in my view, is that they can be seen.  By us.  Humans are only likely to save what they love.  Zoos help to bring some people, especially city people, especially children, an experience of animals that they can’t get in any other way.  And that matters enormously.   All the TV specials in the world – even the good ones -- aren’t the same as actually watching a golden tamarin sit quietly and tenderly groom its mate.

    The discussions we should be having, imo, are things like:  How can zoos do a better job of engaging the people who come there, so they learn about the animals and about conservation?  Which animals can humanely be kept in zoos, and which can’t?  Which can be kept in larger animal parks or preserves?  Which should not be in captivity at all?

    I’ve known some zookeepers well, and interviewed others for articles.  I remember talking with one woman who has spent her life living with and caring for a wide range of animals in a wide range of situations.  She loves bears most of all.  She said to me about grizzly bears:  "If the only way they can survive is in captivity, then let them die.  Just let them die."

    That’s a hell of a choice. But we’re going to be facing that kind of choices.  Even with all the conservation efforts we can manage from this point, a number of species will survive the next fifty to a hundred years only if they are bred in captivity.  Wildlife conservation organizations have known that for the last couple of decades at least.

    Maybe in some cases the right choice is to let them go.  But we want to save as many species as we can.  And zoos and preserves will have their place in that race against time.

    So I'm disagreeing in significant part with the book -- still, I congratulate you on posting on this topic and on getting your diary rescued.  Good going. Write more!  :)

    by Fiona West on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:43:23 AM PDT

    •  Oops -- I meant this comment to be directed to

      the diarist, rather than scrubjay.  THough I like your comment, scrubjay.  I like your nick, too -- I'm an easterner and have never seen a scrub jay, but as a birder I hope to one of these years.

      by Fiona West on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:51:21 AM PDT

      •  I liked your comment too

        I used to volunteer for about 5 years at the zoo in Portland, Oregon, working with graduate students on behavioral enrichment for various zoo animals: river otters, polar bears, harbor seals, mandrills, orangutans, etc.  The chimps there were also being taught American Sign Language.  Like you say, there are many animals that can be kept humanely in zoos, depending on their habits in the wild.  and I agree with your friend about the grizzlies.  We should not keep things like grizzlies in zoos just because we can.  Maybe NOT seeing some of these animals in zoos is much better education for people and their children.  The point needs to be made that some of these animals need large expanses of wilderness for populations to persist.

        by scrubjay on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:59:03 AM PDT

•  I'm curious

  as to what Derek Jensen says about large wildlife parks. Does he think they are conceptually wrong or morally wrong?

  by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:13:30 AM PDT

•  Excellent diary, Chris!

  Derrick Jensen, if you haven't already read his other work, writes and talks extensively on the destructive nature of modern culture.  His works like A Language Older than Words, The Culture of Make Believe, and Endgame Volume 1 and Volume 2) are epic investigations into the many ways in which Jensen sees humans chipping away at the very foundations of life on Earth.

  Jensen's writing is provocative, personal, and not always comfortable reading. I found 'Language' and 'Endgame(s)' intriguing and inspiring. In Endgane II he writes: "Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid."  He never minces words. Thanks, again for this diary!

  by edison on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:35:05 AM PDT

•  [e-mail] replies with concerns

  I received this response to this diary via e-mail:

  Hi,

  I was just perusing a diary you wrote at Daily Kos about how evil zoos are, and though I rarely reach out and comment about stuff I read on the net, I just had to in this case.

  Wow, just wow.  I really hope you don't represent the views of the typical liberal/progressive in this country, because if you do, I am either going to have to kill myself or move to Darfur.

  If you were not bitching about the animals being in the zoo (i.e. we freed all of them from captivity) then you would be bitching about not being able to protect them from hunters, pollution or global warming side effects in their own natural habitat.  You would be saying that we need to set up a sancutary where they can live and be protected from these external forces doing them harm...like a zoo.

  The modern liberal/progressive amazes me.  You can find a reason to whine about anything.  And your diary proves this.  God I hope your people don't take over the White House in 2008.  We would become the biggest nation of pussies on the planet that much sooner.

  Thanks for your time!

  You're quite welcome.  Your comparison between me and female genitalia is a stunning and insightful retort. I am embarrassed that you have seen through my thinly veiled plot to whine about anything and everything.    Next time, I shall endeavor to cloak my pointless ramblings even more.

  by ChrisHardie on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:04:48 AM PDT

  •  The modern conservative/rightwinger amazes me.

    They can find a reason to be offended about anything.

    Offensive, too.

    I guess it saves the effort of actually responding to the issues involved.

    by Fiona West on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:00:46 PM PDT

  •  nice!

    I guess he can move to Darfur now.  Since when is compassion for other species a hateful thing?  Why should humans exert influence on every square inch of the planet?  How about sharing with the millions of other earthlings that make life so beautiful and wonderful and diverse?

    by scrubjay on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:02:58 PM PDT

  •  is there a common ground?

    I would honestly be interested in what this person thinks and why he (probably not a she) thinks like this.  I don't know how to do the box around quotes, unfortunately.

    "how evil zoos are"
    The diary discussed the point of view of an author and explored feelings and ethics of zoos.  I didn't see a mention of "evil."

    Compassion for animals and environmentalism is not a "liberal/progressive" thing.  See the book "Dominion" by Matthew Scully, a journalist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush ("he rightly argues that the important thing is not insisting upon equal "rights" for animals but in treating them with a modicum of respect and dignity").

    "You would be saying that we need to set up a sancutary where they can live and be protected from these external forces doing them harm."
    This sanctuary, actually, is the planet we all share. Species need to be able to adapt and evolve in order to survive the changes humans are causing to the planet. Without large expanses of wild places, extinction will be much worse in the next 50 years. Each extinction unravels one of the millions of tiny connections that keeps the biosphere alive and healthy, including the ecosystem services that humans depend on for clean air and water.

    "You can find a reason to whine about anything.  And your diary proves this."
    This was a valid discussion on a particular subject, not whining. Just because the subject doesn't interest you doesn't invalidate it.

    "God I hope your people don't take over the White House in 2008.  We would become the biggest nation of pussies on the planet that much sooner."
    I personally can't wait.  The dicks have had their way these past 7 years and shown how great it is.

    by scrubjay on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:12:58 PM PDT