Ecological Ethics and Animal Conservation: An Unwritten Chapter
The authority of the information and perspectives of this article rest in the experience and positions held by the author of these articles, Ben A. Minteer and James P. Collins. Mr. Minteer is actively involved with environmental ethics as well as conservation and is chair of life sciences at Arizona State University. What also bolsters the credibility of Ben A. Minteer’s work is that he has been published in Science, Nature, PNAS, BioScience, Conservation Biology, Environmental Ethics, Slate and Earth Island Journal. James P. Collins, is an evolutionary ecologist and researches host-pathogen interactions. Furthermore, he has served as the director of the Population Biology and Physiological Ecology program located at the National Science Foundation. James P. Collins research in evolutionary ecology and Ben A. Minteer’s work in environmental ethics makes the credibility and authority of these authors extremely high and aids in the strength of the article.
The paper, Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research Under Rapid Global Change, examines the increasing conservation efforts of zoos and aquariums. With increasing human intervention in nature, the disruption of ecosystems becomes increasingly prevalent. This paper weighs the consequences of zoos and aquariums taking on more responsibility in conservation while transitioning from their education focus. It not only addresses the transition period that zoos and aquariums are in, it focuses on the ethical obligation humans have to preserve and care for the natural world that cannot protect itself.
Throughout the reading the authors Minteer and Collins were clear to examine the point that zoos have began to transition to research centers instead educational centers. The authors argue that zoos offer a great location for research to be done on species that would otherwise be harmful to the environment or incredible challenging in the field. They argue the question must be asked whether it must be argued whether it would be more harmful to step into the field and attempt to save the species in the field or analyze a smaller sub-population in a safe and measurable environment. It is argued in the paper that in some situations it imperative for survival of a species as a whole to study a smaller subpopulations in controlled research environments. The authors argue the points of ethicists in that it is overall less harmful to study a few animals in captivity rather then impact the natural environment in a potential harmful field study. They are also clear to examine the fact that the in-situ studies which are studies in the field and ex-situ studies which are studies in captivity can be used together to create pan-situ studies that are overall more complete and useful. Now with climate change gradually affecting the world’s natural environments pan-situ conservations studies may become necessary in the conservation of the natural world. In conclusion the authors argue that animal conservationists and researchers are considering more interventions of wildlife in order to meet the desire for conservation. These interventions can be harmful to ecosystems and brings up the question of the ethics of conservation work and the extent to which humans will intervene in order to achieve this ultimate goal of conservation.
The authors Minteer and Collins are clear to establish his point that zoos must begin to shift their focus from preaching about education to the research of animal conservation. The author Minteer and Collins are clear in their point that field conservation can directly benefit from research in zoos. Currently the authors argue that zoos are mainly for the entertainment for the public which they disagree with, if the animals have no purpose of being in captivity other than for the entertainment of the public then they believe they should not be there. As supported in the paper through the support of examples such as the preservation on amphibians, zoos are a key resource than can be used to discover new ways to conserve larger populations struggling in the natural world. The authors are also clear in their support of the belief that in the attempt to conserve animal populations as a whole some animals must remain in captivity for studies to be conducted in controlled and safe environments both for the animal and the testors.
The article, Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change, written by Ben A. Minteer and James P. Collins is centered around the notion that zoos and aquariums are not maintained for the pleasure of humans, but rather for the benefit of the animals themselves. Collins and Minteer write, “But they also function as centers of research into the drivers of population decline, the possibilities of disease mitigation.”(Collins Minteer, 42). However, some might argue that locking up animals in cages to be put on display even though they are being researched, although protected, is unethical. This fine line of justifying the intervention of animals lives is discussed in the fourth chapter of the book, Animal Rights, A Very Short Introduction, written by David DeGrazia. DeGrazia writes, “…when they are able to do what they want, they typically experience pleasure or satisfaction; when they are unable to do what they want, they typically experience frustration or other disagreeable feelings.”(Degrazia, 57). More importantly, when animals are locked up in cages, no matter what establishment it is or for what reason it is unethical because the human is inducing frustration and discomfort in the species.
In today’s political climate, conservation is more of a controversial issue than ever. The constant acceleration of climate change continues to complicate the situation as time is limited to reverse the damage done to ecosystems and disappearing species.The animal world, whether mammalian, amphibian, or other, is under increasing environmental stress and pressure as rapid climate change threatens their ecosystems and human extensive human intervention threatens populations.
Questions for the class:
- How would zoos and aquariums make the transition to places of conservation while still maintaining an income?
- Should animal welfare and conservation remain separate? On a political field?
Citation
A Minteer, Ben & P Collins, James. (2013). Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change. ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 54. 41-51. 10.1093/ilar/ilt009.
Tags: Animal Welfare, Conservation, Education, Zoos, Aquariums, Responsibility