Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rifu | Hacker News Reader

From what I understood from the article, they closed the exhibit because they didn't want the visitors to see the (potentially unsettling/traumatizing) injuries on the baboons. Which actually sounds reasonable to me.

View on HN

At something like 4 or 5 years old I lived in Pittsburgh. The zoo had an elephant with a red eye that terrified me. These were the days of bars and chains and up close displays so you could see right into its horrible red eye and after it tore aside the bars and snapped its chains it could easily destroy you. (Note: 4 or 5 years old). The elephants were one of my brothers favorites so we spent a lot of time there. I can still see that eye after more than half a lifetime, I expect I'll still see it at the end. (LOTR could have had a much more ominous eye.) I spent a lot of time looking at the animal opposite the aisle pretending there was no elephant, it was in a low cage, I have no recollection of what it was, maybe a marsupial? Now I can hear the elephant shifting its weight back and forth behind me.

Point being, eventually… A zoo probably does not want 4 year old children looking at a baboon with the side of its face torn away to expose the bone. In this case, "think of the children".

Children all over the world participate in animal slaughter ever day. That's just a normal part of being a human (historically). Only recently has our society hidden that from view. Now as a result, we're becoming increasingly crueless about the realities of survial.

I agree, but personally it has been somewhat emotionally taxing that this deer season I've had to cut two throats. Too much bow hunting seems to have left me a poorer shot with a gun.

At some level, however, if I'm not comfortable cutting the throat of an animal that is staring at me in fear, how comfortable should I be eating meat?

Totally agree wrt 4-year olds - but perhaps it should be up to the parents to decide what age is appropriate to show their kids the more gory aspects of wild life (if they choose to do it at all), rather than closing the whole exhibit? For older teenagers and adults, there is a bit of science to be learned there.

When I was 5 or so, a baby elephant in the children's section of the Pittsburgh zoo reached through the bars and put its trunk around my waist - pulling me against the bars. I wasn't hurt but it was pretty terrifying.

That sounds really cute. But dangerous...

"they closed the exhibit because they didn't want the visitors to see the (potentially unsettling/traumatizing) injuries on the baboons"

Have they tried closing the Zoo and releasing the animals back into the wild. Zoos are a nineteenth century anachronism, designed for when that was the only way people could get a look at such exotic animals. Last time I was in one, the animals looked tired, stressed and listless.

"Have they tried closing the Zoo and releasing the animals back into the wild." YES. This. Literally laughing out loud at the obviousness of this.. Rediculious that we still keep wild animals as pets and call it educational. It's an amazing lesson in speciesism.

Given how freaked out a lot of people are by the baboons at the Singapore Zoo that are apparently completely healthy (according to all the signs that attempt to reassure visitors, but I remain dubious), but have what look like pretty scary tumors on their buttocks, I can imagine how poorly they would react to actual injuries.

Then issue a warning. I actually think it's unethical to hide the animals. The public can't make informed decisions about visiting the zoo if the zoo is hiding the reality the animals live in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com