Teachers and Students > Debates
In captivity or in the Wild??
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: ~Alpha on February 25, 2010, 02:27:59 pm ---If we can force animals in captivity, then why not humans?
--- End quote ---
Humans are superior. We are the movers and the shakers of the world, not the animals.
I am not saying that all animals should be kept in captivity. That is ridiculous. Only some in state owned and private zoos and nature parks.
astarmathsandphysics:
You never know what you've lost til it's gone.
In London we are nostalgic about clean air.
$tyli$h Executive:
I meant that only SOME (a very small percentage of a species population) animals should be kept in captivity (zoos) because it allows the government and those of us who own private zoos to earn money. This will not cause any negative impact in the whole animal population. The majority of them will still be leading a life full of freedom in the wild. The natural ecosystem will continue over there, enabling us to earn money over here.
astarmathsandphysics:
Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: astarmathsandphysics on February 25, 2010, 03:42:01 pm ---Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.
--- End quote ---
I did not know that. Thank you. :)
But I cannot understand how can animals become extinct if we keep only a small portion of them in zoos. I know that already quite some animals are on the verge of extinction like the panda. But that is the result of deforestation and dumping of toxic wastes here and there. Not zoos or nature parks.
Of course, deforestation and dumping toxic waste like that is never justified.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version