What interesting things? It appears he went a week and didn't seem to enjoy it. I imagine that would be the case for any diet where you only eat the same thing for a week.
Yes I was hoping for a Supersize Me type experiment. I actually tried to scroll down a couple of times not noticing the page had ended. Very underwhelming.
Was the food log from Supersize Me ever released? It's been a few years so maybe things have changed, but the last time I checked there was a severe lack of real information in Supersize Me to support the claims the guy was making.
It's worth pointing out that monkeys are usually fed more than just the chow. However, since the chow is "complete", it is less important to carefully monitor the balance of fruits, nuts, etc. to make sure that they're getting enough of every vitamin (etc).
This is one of those articles that I don't want to read because the answer is in the title. Captivity is killing the Gorillas, the illness they are developing is a result of it.
I do not get the concept of a zoo. I have been to a real jungle safari recently and it struck me how obviously different animals are in their own vast natural habitat than in a zoo. A Zoo may serve some educational purposes maybe but it is cruel to just artificially cage animals cause you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat. One is not supposed to encounter wild animals according to convenience. Everytime I have been to a zoo I have seen the saddest animals around. One can argue about the merits of commercial safari but if it's part of a national park system with carefully controlled traffic, it's actually far enlightening than a visit to a zoo.
> I do not get the concept of a zoo. I have been to a real jungle safari recently and it struck me how obviously different animals are in their own vast natural habitat than in a zoo. A Zoo may serve some educational purposes maybe but it is cruel to just artificially cage animals cause you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat. One is not supposed to encounter wild animals according to convenience. Everytime I have been to a zoo I have seen the saddest animals around. One can argue about the merits of commercial safari but if it's part of a national park system with carefully controlled traffic, it's actually far enlightening than a visit to a zoo.
A jungle safari is not something the majority of people can afford, while most can afford a trip the zoo. I don't disagree with some of your points, but lines like "you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat" will probably fall on deaf ears. If you plan on ever convincing anyone, I'd recommending sticking to your line that "one is not supposed to encounter wild animals according to convenience".
Not only this. If the amount of people visiting zoos would go on a safari the environmental impact would probably be significant and might endanger the animals natural population.
> I have been to a real jungle safari recently and it struck me how obviously different animals are in their own vast natural habitat than in a zoo.
Having worked as a naturalist-guide in the Peruvian Amazon back in the 1990s, the main way that they differ is by being for the most part - invisble. “Here that sound? That’s a large group of spider monkeys moving off, nearby... now look at these leaf cutter ants”
So many years ago, a friend convinced me to go "bird watching" with her. And I discovered that it's mostly bird listening. It takes considerable skill to actually see the birds that you hear.
yeah you are right. I would replace the harsher "Lazy" with Time + finance + effort variables.
I have been to zoos before quite a few times on school trips. There are maybe quite a few species of animals who would be survive okay, if that's the baseline, in a typical zoo. So a handful of animals everywhere have to sacrifice their lives for science so good. But what struck me in the safari was to see the animals and notice how "different" they behaved compared to animals in the zoo or even animals close to human cities (like Monkeys). The animals are not even interested in the human visitors, animals don't "shout unnecessarily" in the jungle (as humans would label their speech pattern as, screeching like a monkey) and if there is sounds in the jungle, it almost always indicates something or serves a particular purpose (mating calls for e.g). This education you would glean from a zoo? The only education I personally took from Zoo visits was, "Damn we are cruel". I totally understand some agencies use public animal sites for protecting and breeding endangered animals, there are sanctuary sites to serve as enhanced landing pads for birds but all of this is quite different than a typical Disneyland zoo setup. It is almost always for silly eertainment like watching Orcas dance in SeaWorld. Sure it teaches you about animals and increases cognitive awareness but one should take children to a nature hike, that doesn't cost much if you are so inclined for a nature experience.
Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but: Zoos may be an important public service for the environmental cause. Zoos create awareness, understanding, goodwill and support for habitat preservation and endangered species. When I moved to Chicago I was surprised to find cows at the Lincoln Park Zoo- but then I realized many city kids would have never seen a cow before. It's the same way with giraffes for anyone who does not live in East Africa. It's not great for an animal to be in captivity, but there is an argument to be made about what zoos do for the greater good.
It's important not to underestimate the value of zoos in conservation. The southern white rhino, arabian oryx, and Przewalski's horse were all extinct in the wild, and conservation efforts on zoos and private preserves have re-introduced all three of those species back to the wild. The Przewalski's horse is still listed as endangered in the wild, but the oryx is now vulnerable and the southern white rhino is not threatened. That's three species saved from extinction via zoos that I can name from a few minutes of research (technically the oryx and rhino also involved breeding programs on private preserves, but zoos played an integral part of the reintroduction).
There's also ample research opportunities available in zoos that would be impractical or irresponsible to do in the wild. This research not only improves our understanding of these creatures, but can provide highlight the importance of protecting them, and even provide insight into how best to protect them.
I won't deny that there are zoos in the world that mistreat animals, but there are also some truly spectacular ones. In the US, I highly recommend the DC Zoo, the Omaha Zoo, and the San Diego Zoo. These zoos provide ample space for their animals, and manage them using only positive feedback. In the DC Zoo, I know that medical services like vaccines for the Orangutans, for example, are entirely voluntary. They don't capture or sedate or force the Orangutans to get shots, but rather coax them with a reward (in this case, the zookeeper told me the reward is a cup of honey).
There's the repopulation angle of conservation- there's also the education angle. People tend to care more about nature the more they learn about it. The suffering of orangutans in Borneo will tend to mean more to someone who has looked an orangutan in the eye, vs someone who has maybe heard of them once upon a time.
Same thing happens with places like our national parks. Visiting national parks gets people caring about conservation, so ironically on the one hand we despoil some of the wilderness with park facilities but as a result people vote to protect the rest.
I generally disapprove of zoos or animals on display at all.
But I used to visit some caged tigers occasionally. The guy that had them - something like 4-5 tigers and a large black cat - would educate folks on them. It turns out these were cats people tried to keep as pets. These were cats that simply could not be returned to the wild. Some were abused or had been otherwise harmed as well.
He very strongly warned folks that these large animals are not pets. Not good at all.
I completely approve of zoos keeping such animals. Same with animals that have been injured and saved, but can't return to the wild. I also don't mind them trying conservation efforts, but I think if we kept the animals out of the public's eye, we'd do better. I think funding might go down, however.
That's actually what the Austin Zoo is: A bunch of animals people tried to keep as pets that they had to give up when the animal got big enough to eat them. Lions, Tigers, Bears...seriously someone tried to have a bear as a pet.
That makes me feel a whole lot better about the Austin Zoo. :)
And it doesn't surprise me that folks have kept them as pets. I don't really understand it and truly wish this sort of practice would stop. Or at least require people to invest time and money into special classes concerning their animal along with long-term planning for the care of the animal. It won't stop some people, though.
I feel like a fair number of zoos are like this nowadays. I spent a summer working at the Belize zoo when I was younger and it was the same story, animals that had been kept as pets, had injuries, etc... that wouldn't make it in the wild.
I don't know how legal all of it was. I know folks in Indiana can keep things like skunks with the proper paperwork, and large animals take more. I imagine this stuff is similar in other areas.
Other animals, such as boa constrictors and iguanas, are bought when small and quickly grow larger than the person can take care of. I imagine large cats, bears, and whatnot are similar to this situation, with more paperwork. I imagine there are lots of places where a rich enough person can have a private zoo, complete with lions, tigers, and bears.
Additionally, there is a thriving black market for restricted animals. Some places, this might be as "mundane" as ferrets. Others, alligators, endangered turtles, and even large cats can be had. I'm also guessing that some folks kill the mother bear and trap the baby with intentions of keeping it.
If you think about zoos or royal menageries existing before hi-definition video, photography, steam engines, or even the printing press, then their existence makes a bit more sense. Human life was also at a different level of drudgery and cruelty not very long ago. Some zoos have a very long history with the oldest one existing today founded in Vienna in 1752. Institutions that have lasted don't tend to just shut themselves down, but I think zoos have responded to modern sensibilities with bigger, more natural enclosures, and a focus on conservation. If holographic tech gets good enough, I could see some zoos transitioning to having no live animals at all.
We choose to allow 4.5 million visitors to Yosemite NP each year and countless others to other national, state, and local parks and preserves per year. There is a lot of damage done to these areas by visitors that we've designated to protect and conserve. The rational explained to me is this: if all we did was fence up these areas to protect them and maybe severely limit the number of visitors, sure we could protect these lands very well, however there is no emotional way to generate public support for conserving these lands. By allowing visitors to parks, the public is able to experience the wonder of these areas and bring the desire to conserve them home, so to speak.
I imagine the same applies to zoos: they exist as a way to expose people to a slice of the wildlife in the world that makes the animals tangible, not just pixels on a screen. I would agree the model for many zoos needs work, but any zoo that focuses on rehabilitating animals rather than captivity for the sake of it is a step in the right direction.
> Everytime I have been to a zoo I have seen the saddest animals around.
I grew up with zoos and circuses. I rode an elephant and had my photo taken with a tiger when I was around five years old. While I’m glad to have touched these animals, I find the idea of captivity cruel today. One of the saddest things I have ever seen was a solitary rhinoceros endlessly pacing before a crowd of slack jawed spectators at the last zoo I will ever visit.
This is what documentaries are for. Zoos have educational value, but the expense is too great.
A few years ago I went to a dinner party at an anthropology professor's home. He was a big game hunter, and an entire floor of his house was full of taxidermied animals of all types and sizes, from all over the world.
The idea of sport hunting (i.e. killing things for fun) still troubles me, but I have to admit it was fascinating to get to see those animals up close (much closer than I would at a zoo). Presumably those dead animals will still be providing that opportunity long after their zoo counterparts have been replaced by a new generation of captives.
I could respect hunters if they went out with only a knife or a spear, alone on foot, but killing an animal at a safe distance with a high powered rifle, a vehicle to make a quick getaway, a whole crew of guards and guides, is just base cowardice, those people are the scum of the earth.
And even then, no reason to hunt some animal unless you plan to eat them.
> you are too lazy to make a massive effort to go see wild animals in their natural habitat
For the vast majority of people it's not being "too lazy" but simply not having the (financial) means to do a "real jungle safari".
Especially once you factor in children, which are often the target audience for zoos, paying for a jungle safari is quite a bit more expensive compared to just visiting the nearest zoo.
Mind you: I'm not disagreeing with your basic point of these places being cruel living conditions for animals, but I take issue with your labeling of the motivations for doing so (too lazy). In reality, only very few people have to financial means to make "real jungle safaris", even more so when you already have to take care of kids (which are expensive), a factor quite a few people on HN regularly overlook on quite a few issues. Not everybody is a well-paid coder/exec/entrepreneur (and it's naive to assume everybody could) with tons of disposable income, the vast majority of people mostly struggle to make the ends meet.
Sadly there are no easy "solutions" to any of this and for some children, it can be an experience which actually makes them aware of these issues in the very first place. I still remember seeing live Dolphins for the first time at the local zoo, and how sad and sick they looked compared to images/videos I've seen of wild ones. Years later it turned out that kid me was pretty spot on because it came to light that these dolphins had been drugged (and probably still are) so they can endure their living conditions [0].
Yeah that surprised me as well. A number of different types of monkies in a zoo I visited were previously used as pets and given to the zoo after being rescued or owner wasn't able to take care of them anymore.
Evidently taking care of them is a little more difficult because they don't have any medical history when they come in, so the keepers are kind of flying blind at first while learning the animals medical needs.
My understanding is that zoos in the west started as an imperial project: showing the citizens of England and other European countries exotic creatures from the far off lands those countries had colonized. Similarly with botanical gardens, interestingly enough.
what of the idea that zoos cause people to develop an actualy empathy with animals they would not normally otherwise find themselves aware of? A kid that sees a rhino at a young age has a chance of carring that empathy through their whole life.
I always hated zoos for this reason and have always tried to avoid them. It makes me sad. Can't believe animated movies are being made about how animals are having fun staying in a zoo.
It is a very shitty ethical conundrum to have to keep smart animals in captivity and misery because otherwise members of a completely different species can't be bothered to care and the whole species suffer more.
I like to think of them more as "ambassadors" - you see how cool a lion/monkey/snake/wolf/whatever is close up, and as a result you are more likely to support efforts to preserve them in the wild.
Is a point of view. We could even say the same to describe a spaceship. Other point of view could be that they are refugees in a safe zone. Would be naive to ignore than the same animals in the wild are being wipped at very fast and increasing pace. We could talk about the 3.000 orangutans killed each year in the wild for example.
Zoos exist so regular people can see exotic animals. While it is probably terrible for the animals in general, people keep coming. A "real jungle safari" is something most people just can't afford.
Do you want those toddlers to grow up with a deep enough appreciation for animals and the natural environment to invest real resources in conservation when they grow up -- even if it means conserving environments in places like Africa and South America that they will likely never see in person?
People only put effort into things they care about, and they only care about what they feel connected too. If we don't make wild animals real to a signification fraction of the voting population, we won't have wild animals for much longer.
I don't know if zoos are the right way. They seem to make people think that wild animals sit around the whole day in tight spaces and play with beach balls. Or people may think that Orcas have nothing better to do than interacting with humans. I think more can be done with documentaries or making wild places more accessible. I think Yellowstone is a good example for people learning how nature can look.
You say as if there's no way to get a bad food supply outside of captivity.
It's not a inherent part of captivity. If some prison started beheading people every thursday, it wouldn't be "prison" that kills people, it would be the beheadings.
That's technically true, but there's more to learn than that. Wouldn't it be good to know exactly what it is about captivity that's killing them and try to fix it? It does seem to offer some insights about human health too.
I agree with you, I don't know why you've been down voted.
A will to live is actually one of the most important factors in surviving any injury or even any psychological upset. It's a really strange phenomenon if you think about it. Conceptually you'd think you would die from a fatal injury whether or not you wanted to live, or that you would survive if your injury was not fatal or if you had no injury at all, but that psychological component of wanting to die vs. not wanting to die can tip the scales to the other end, miraculously. I suppose the most extreme example is suicide in otherwise healthy adults.
Here is a rather long article on the subject in humans:
I appreciate the work that goes into carefully crafting a longform piece like this and usually prefer the full-course meal that this represents instead of the fast-food version you're asking for.
Hiding the synopsis implies that the article is meant to be enjoyed as a narrative, and is not an urgent warning. Breaking news and other urgent matters ("Men walk on the moon", "Nixon resigns," "Net Neutrality abolished") have the synopsis clearly stated at the top. Do those count as "fast food?"
Journalism style is supposed to be "inverted pyramid", such that all the sentences are ordered by decreasing importance to the audience. If you stop reading in the middle of the article, you only lose some of the details.
It is a separate skill from writing an engaging narrative that builds up to a dramatic resolution.
It is also a separate skill to know what style is most appropriate for your audience. I think most people casually browsing news on the web would prefer journalistic style to narrative style. But the ones who like narrative might also be willing to pay more for it.
By way of analogy: a journey is in part about arriving at the (or a) destination, but it's also about the journey itself.
Revealing the destination at the beginning, if it is in fact known, does not of necessity detract from the journey. And if an article is in fact about arriving at some conclusion, then, as a courtesy to the reader who is trying to determine how to allocate their own limited attention, providing some indication of where this particular journey ends may prove worthwhile.
On the basis of the discussion here and criticisms of this particular article voiced, I'm about to close this particular HN tab and move on to others that may be vaguely more interesting and/or considerate of my attention.
The tagline does this. Gorilla hearts were stopping, the problems seems to have been in the gut. What disease was stopping their heart and what digestive issue was causing it are detailed content.
they need you to capture your attention to display you the ads. how else would they earn money? or do you expect them to work for free? would you work for free? would you pay for this article? i certainly wouldn't even though i was curious about the answer
A story that is expressly written to hook you for ads is obvious both in how it's written and it's quality (hint: usually bad).
There is a lot of trash written just to hook eyeballs so I understand your sentiment, but it's very tiring seeing these comments, especially when it's on a story like this that was well written and clearly not the kind of article you are saying it is.
The headline in this case was written to hook your curiosity, but the overall story was meant to explore more then just that answer. While it does answer it's original question, the story is also very much about the history of gorillas in captivity, and how their diets, treatmeant, and original misconceptions keepers had evolved over the years.
how you read the story depends on your subjective judgment. some might find it well written, others might find it too long to get a simple answer to a simple question regardless how well is it written.
edit: originally i was responding to the parent comment asking for TLDR on every article. this is not related to the content of this particular article
So only scientists can write articles about science (and only the specific area that they research)? Would you say that only politicians can write about politics?
You'd live in a pretty limited (and skewed) world of information if people could only write about personal experience.
Or are you arguing that the writer showed little knowledge of actual gorilla research? You didn't provide any argumentation to support this perspective.
> what right does she have
Could you elaborate on how you got from TL;DRs to freedom of press?
Hint: They doesn't believe that statement, they were using its ridiculousness to attack your point of "If you don't have time to read the article, why do you think you deserve attaining its essence?"
http://www.angryman.ca/monkey.html