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".
Zoos are suboptimal but do provide some benefit at least
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.
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”
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).
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.
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.
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.
However, it would appear that Wojtek was a cub for most of the war.
I understand that the Second Amendment allows for bears, but it says nothing about big cats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And even then, no reason to hunt some animal unless you plan to eat them.
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].
[0] http://uk.whales.org/news/2012/07/german-zoo-data-reveals-ca...
I guess this was they only place where anybody had any idea how to take care of them.
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.
Limiting things to insects and you could still show far more species than any trip while still providing appropriate sized habits.
It’s mostly for kids, it will be quite dangerous to go see most of the jungle animals with toddlers. No?
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.
Nothing compares to the visceral experience of seeing a live animal first-hand in the flesh.
As an adult you are not supposed to enjoy seeing wild animals?