Zoos and Humans

I had never considered zoos pornographic. After reading Acampora’s article, I agree that many, but not all, zoos can be viewed as pornographic. I see some significant differences between the nature of erotic (porn industry) and biotic (zoo industry) entertainment. There is a certain “economy of desire” which exists human-human in the porn industry, and human-animal in the zoo industry - relationship shortcuts.
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.

Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?

Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?

How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?

Nature, Humans included.

Attending college is absolutely what I need to be doing. Wednesday, in logic class I learned about the Principle of Interpretive Charity. I had never heard of that principle. It has a Bhuddist essence, and appears to be the best way to live among linguistic communicators.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.

We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.

Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.

Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.

"Zoos and Eyes"

My first zoo experience was a grammar school field trip to the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. I was deeply traumatized by the horrific condition of the animals and their environment. My next zoo-like experience came a decade later when I visited the San Diego Wild Animal Park. People were confined inside a monorail. The park was artificially divided into regions representing the world’s ecosystems. Animals were grouped according to the region where they would normally be found – except predators were arificially separated from their prey. I was delighted with the concept of confining the people instead of the animals.
My next zoo experience came about a decade later at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. The enclosures I could see were clean, but too tiny for any mammal. I remember the tigers and the wolves. I thought they all looked depressed. I had an amazing interspecies experience with a silver back gorilla who offered to share his meal with me. We were separated by a sheet of glass. He repeatedly tapped the glass with his green beans and carrot pieces while I held my hand against the glass. I remember being amazed at his hands, his fingers, and his eyes. His graciousness couldn’t mask his sadness. I repeatedly apologized to him about his circumstances, but I had no solution for his plight. I was both exhilerated and anguished by this zoo experience.
At the New England Aquariam in Boston, a seal and I shared a brief encounter that I enjoyed. But again, the enclosure was unacceptably tiny. I went to Sea World, and hated it. I went to Busch Garden, and Disney’s Animal Kingdom. These places were considered among the best zoos and parks. I found them depressing. Unable to enjoy them the way most of the public seemed to be, I thought there must be something wrong with me. These animals have been objectified to such an extreme that most human spectators do not recognize their suffering. There seems to be no innate human compassion for the suffering of their fellow creatures.

This year I went to an animal park in Quebec, where the human spectators were confined to their vehicles and following an assigned route. Sighting of particular species was not guaranteed. Time of visit, season, weather, and the nature of the species, are factors affecting potential sightings. The animals have sufficient assigned territory to avoid human eyes, but I don’t know at what cost to them. We watched cars and the bus choose to keep moving instead of waiting to see if animals would come into sight. For many human spectators, there was a real impatience with, and intolerance of, the natural needs and rituals of the animals. This clearly was what Acampora was speaking of, those people had come to be amused, entertained. The animals were objectified, valueless. The spectator's experience of viewing was all that had value here.

“Zoos and Eyes” validated my experience with these zoos. I agree with many of Ralph Acampora’s statements supporting his argument that zoos are pornagraphic. Modern zoos are not healthy for the animals or the spectators. It would be optimum if there was opportunity for interspecies encounters, if it was a voluntary encounter for all parties. I would not want to never have the opportunity to encounter extirpated species, or non-native species. I will always cherish and be saddened by my encounter with the silver back, and the seal. I must question some of my assumptions of what I have seen in the Quebec park. As you can see from one of my coyote pictures and one of my wolf pictures taken there, sometimes the animals do choose to make eye contact with the human spectators.