Virtual Zoos

What if far (very far) into the future all zoos around the world were permanently shut down and were replaced by virtual hologram zoos. What if you could stay in your very own city and not have to drive a great distance to go to a zoo. What if you could just walk into some sort of building or museum type structure and you could watch a hologram projection with live cameras streaming wild animals in their natural habitat–in the comfort of their own home for once. You would be able to see absolutely any animal you ever wanted to see and could really study and observe what these animals are actually like in their proper environments. It’s not like you can actually touch the animals to begin with at zoos, I guess you can feed some of them, but that is really the only thing that would be a potential downside. Just imagine the thought of how you could virtually be in an amazon in South Africa, watching a lioness going in for its kill to feed it’s baby cubs, who are just off to the side learning from its mama. That is definitely something that you will never see in your local zoo.

Lately in the news there has been talk about creating holograms for famous people who have died decades to centuries ago and being able to have a virtual conversation with them. For example, lets pick Einstein. A holographic projection of Einstein would appear right before your eyes and you would literally be able to ask him any question. A hologram of Einstein has already been created, here’s a short clip of it to give you an idea: 

Holograms, so far, have generally only been created for celebrities that are deceased. However, with the rate at which technology is advancing it’s only time where people will essentially be able to hologram anything/anyone, live or dead. I’m sure we’ve all had that moment when watching something very intensely and felt, “wow, it was like I was actually there!” Now imagine a time where that feeling feels even realer, where it feels like you are truly in Africa or Europe, or anywhere in the world watching wild animals, but in reality you are only a few minutes away from your home in Boulder, Colorado. This could give rise to so many incredible opportunities. By bringing wild animals out of their natural habitat, to places like America, where hippo’s clearly don’t originate from, it gives a lot of people the chance to see these beautiful creatures because they can’t afford to go to a country half-way across the world. But, with holograms of these animals you would be able to experience both being in another country and an one-on-one interaction with this animal. You would experience more than a person who’s job is to film documentaries on these animals. You would be up close and personal with any animal of your choice, you wouldn’t have to worry about getting eaten alive, or trying to track your animal down, it would all be right handed to you.

Having a holographic image of live animals interacting in their homeland may not suffice for those who would rather interact with an animal behind cages. They are both very different feelings and very different experiences. Holograms are as real as it can get, but still not completely real and the same goes for zoos, they are also very real, but not real at the same time. With zoos you get to see the animals in real life and for most people that’s as close as they will ever get to seeing a wild animal. However, you don’t go to zoos to understand an animals lifestyle, you go there (generally) to literally just see and sort-of observe the animals encounters. Whereas virtual hologram zoos, it would be all about feeling as if you are, ‘walking in the animals shoes.’ You’d essentially be living a day in the life of whatever animal you so desire.

Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence or sources that support my exact idea, or none that are at least to the publics access. However, I found some videos that give a good enough representation of what I’m trying to express: 

The Truth Hides Behind the Looking Glass

Image courtesy of Their Turn

Picture yourself, wandering through the zoo, admiring the animals that have been brought together for your viewing pleasure. As you meander down through the halls, you see a polar bear, displaying a peculiar behavior. This polar bear is walking forwards three steps, stopping, and reversing his steps. Over, and over again. You sit down and ponder on this animals behavior, “Why is this polar bear acting insane? It’s definitely not dancing” is a possible thought that might occur. Do you ever really figure out what actually happened though? Possibly. Maybe you go home and do some research but more likely than not you leave whatever you saw at the zoo–at the zoo. What I described the polar bear to be doing actually happened in real life at a zoo in Argentina, and I’m sure many other places but here is a video from this zoo showing this polar bear’s behavior:

People often see things without knowing what’s really going on behind closed doors–or in this case, behind transparent windows where everything is exposed, yet we still have no idea how unnatural these animals habitats are. In the first image above of a man filming a polar bear swimming underwater, the water looks crystal blue, theirs sunlight reflecting from the surface, and overall a peaceful looking photograph. It just makes you want to be their to experience this incredible creature (the polar bear, that is). This is what media does. Media blinds their audience from the reality of the situation. For example, in the video of the polar bear walking back and forth, first thought is most likely, “why is he doing that?” Well, why IS the polar bear doing that? Let’s see what the media has to say about that. According to NY Daily News after his ‘best friend’ died this polar bear essentially “slipped into a depression, said experts.” But who are in fact the experts? What actually defines a person to be an expert? What kind of expert are they, a depression polar bear expert? It is completely unknown. I constantly find myself reading news articles and when there is a point trying to be proven (a point that is most likely masking the real issue going on), instead of stating who actually said the quote and what kind of authority that person has (as in CEO, for example), they result in letting the audience know that experts indeed stated this fact. Obviously when a person sees the word ‘expert’ he or she has already automatically registered that this is professional and accurate evidence. This is another perfect example of how media tries to hide what is actually happening and making their readers believe to be perceived as the truth.

Going back to the real issue of the polar bear’s frantic actions, the pertinent matter is that this is not a natural act and there is clearly something wrong with him. But, before I continue I thought I should mention a little more background information on this polar bear. He is 29 year old male named Arturo who lives at the Mendoza Zoo in Argentina. And just as a side note, polar bears typically live to be 25-30 years old. Now back to the story: other than NY Daily News stating that his unusual performances are a sign of depression, they also mentioned how the weather is scorching hot at 95 degrees. Although that is very alarming, I first have to mention that when I checked two other media sources, they said that it was 104 degrees. A nine degree difference is definitely something to be concerned about. So what is the media trying to portray? Are they trying to make the environment not seem as hot by reducing it down to 95 degrees, are they trying to make it seem hotter and more drastic by boosting it up to 104 degrees, or are one of these temperatures the actual true temperature and the other media source(s) is just simply incorrect? It’s so impossible to know what the truth is when media brings out stories. It definitely makes it harder to decipher if the media is trying to be more dramatic than necessary. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know how much Arturo was suffering from the heat, but regardless, polar bears shouldn’t be in environments that are that hot and he is without a doubt in an incredibly unhealthy living situation.

NY Daily News then goes on to describing the terrible living conditions Arturo is in and how heartbreaking it is. How “he has limited access to water pools and has no contact with other bears.” How he lives in a concrete den where he “paces around it nonstop, burying his face in his paws and sprawling out on the floor, refusing to move.” They mention in great detail, and repetitively, how there is a campaign to help free Arturo, the “Worlds Saddest Animal.” Arturo wasn’t classified as the worlds saddest polar bear, or even bear, but as the worlds saddest animal. That is a massive statement to say that he is the saddest animal on this planet. But, it gets the readers thinking and feeling awful for this unfortunate and unloved polar bear.

Image courtesy of Their Turn

Image courtesy of Their Turn

The media knows how to grab and tug at their audience’s hearts, which is why it is so often that people are swayed by what the media has to say, while the truth continues to hide behind the looking glass.

The Copenhagen Zoo Shows No Mercy–Yet Again

Image Courtesy of CNN

In my last blog post I mentioned CNNs story on the slaughtering of an innocent giraffe, Marius, at the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark. However, it seems as though the zoo did not stop there. Just a few weeks later they killed not just one, but FOUR lions just so that they could bring in ONE male lion for breeding purposes only. Many have wondered how four dead lions equate to one new lion, and that answer has unjustifiably gone unanswered. Those four lions were actually a family. Two of them were relatively young lions while the other two were their parents. Although the answer that did come to play by the spokesman for the Copenhagen Zoo, Tobias Stenbaek Bro, states that this new male lion would have killed the two younger lions and that the other two lions were basically too old to breed anymore, so the zoo took matters into their own hands and did the job themselves (ending the lives of the four lions).

Image Courtesy of the Guardian

So now that we know that four lions were sacrificed so that one lion could be brought in in order to start a new breeding line, lets figure out why this new lion is so special. This new lion is around three years of age, also a rather big guy, and up to par on health standards. And that’s about all the details gathered about him. Oh and the zoo chief, Steffen Straede, also remarked that “he is a beautiful young male and I am certain he will be an impressive ambassador for his species.” So, he’s also beautiful. I guess the four dead lions weren’t up to the Copenhagen Zoos beauty standards.

CNN continued to investigate into the story and like last time with Marius the giraffe, people wondered why weren’t the lions at least sent to another zoo? This time, the Copenhagen Zoo simply said that they did attempt at doing so, “but unfortunately there wasn’t any interest.” Another reason they said they had to ‘put down’ these lions were because “of the natural structure and behavior of the lion pride.” And the public didn’t take these responses to well… “Why are people visiting this abhorrent animal slaughter house,” said a message posted on a Facebook page that calls for the closure of the zoo.

CNN then goes into detailed information about how the EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) acknowledges that the zoo didn’t actually break any regulations and that while they regret “the death of the animals in question, we recognize the right of Copenhagen Zoo to humanely cull them in line with their policies.” However, the public doesn’t seem to care about whether or not if the zoo stayed inline with “codes of conduct,” they still see it as animal abuse and the zoo as a slaughter house according to another media site I checked out. CNN seems to be representing a rather neutral stand point. Although it’s puzzling why the information about EAZA is headlined under “public anger,” perhaps CNN is actually more sided with the zoos defense than with the publics. So trying to dig more into if CNN is more about defending why the zoo did what it did, there was a link at the bottom of the article titled,”READ: Opinion: Why arguments for killing of giraffe don’t stand up to scrutiny.”

After reading this new article, I have to say that CNN has definitely taken defense with the Copenhagen Zoo, even though CNN did have one opinion against EAZA after they had explained how killing Marius the giraffe needed to die anyway to show people the “bigger picture,” CNN said:

“But EAZA itself is less than consistent in its approach to inbreeding and, indeed, in its concern for the ultimate fate of animals in its member zoos.”

And just to top it off at the end of the article there was another link to a page titled: “READ: Why Copenhagen zoo was right to cull giraffe.” I didn’t bother reading it since the title was pretty suffice. So there we have pretty solid proof of CNN agreeing with how this zoo treats its animals.

All in all, I believe CNN covered both stories of the death of Marius and the four lions as much as possible, could have put in more detail about age, background information, and other opinions on these deaths. But they didn’t follow up on these news stories after they were published. Really just stated, made a point, and left. But I guess that is just the harsh reality of a news cycle when certain stories aren’t important enough to them.

Media & The Zoos

I chose the topic of following media coverage on the possible (and hopeful) reality of all zoos shutting down worldwide. I became interested in this topic after hearing about what happened at the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark. Essentially what took place was that this zoo slaughtered a perfectly healthy giraffe in front of hundreds of people–including children–as a “duty to avoid interbreeding,” according to the zoos scientific director, Bengt Holst. This giraffe, named Marius, was then “dismembered” and fed to the lions for families with their innocent little kids to watch as poor Marius got devoured. It got me thinking about how once the documentaries, specifically Blackfish came out and made the public aware of the severe abuse of killer whales at SeaWorld, it immediately went viral through all media sources (e.g. News channels, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and since then, SeaWorlds across the globe have started to shut down permanently. So, I say that it’s only time before zoos, too, will go out of business.

Here is a picture demonstrating families gathered around as they watch the veterinarian slice open Marius:

Image courtesy of USA Today

---

Perhaps the extinction of zoos isn’t a pressing priority right now in our world, and since the amount of zoos significantly out numbers the amount of SeaWorlds there are, it will be a much more difficult task to complete. However, there are organizations and news outlets out there that are helping spread the word to support this event. For instance, I’ve been following PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)–the largest non-profit organization in the world that helps protect and save animals from inhumane treatment. An excellent article they posted that I recently read mentions how back in August 2013 the Costa Rican government reported that they, “would close the country’s public zoos and release some animals into the wild and send others to sanctuaries.” Although there are about 10,000 zoos across the globe, and this is just one zoo willing to shut down, it’s a start and a great influence for others to do the same.

The Costa Rican government realizes that the captivity of these animals should no longer serve for the public’s benefits and that it’s now time to focus on the animals themselves. I’m not sure if people really understand the malnourishment these wild animals undergo or realize that they are completely stripped from their natural habitat. Sure, some of these animals have a little more freedom, like giraffe’s (except Marius…), but what about the lions, tigers, and all the other animals that have or will spend the rest of their lives in cages? Let’s not forget about the elephants, the largest vegans on earth! With their life spent at the zoo, the usual life expectancy of about 70+ years has never actually been seen, or at least recorded. It’s a miracle if they even reach the age of 40, and if they do reach 40 or live longer, they aren’t living a healthy life what-so-ever, but rather a miserable and painful one. Here is a chart as an example of how elephants have died from around the age of 40+/- in the most recent years at zoos across North America:

Facility	Date of Death	Elephant	Species	Cause of Death/Ailments	Age
N.C. Zoo	June 17th, 2014	Little Diamond	African	Succumbed to an impacted large intestine from ingesting sand	36 years
Greenville Zoo	June 14th, 2014	Joy	African	Unknown	44 years
Maryland Zoo	March 16, 2014	Dolly	African	Euthanized due to declining health issues	38 years
Greenville Zoo	March 4, 2014	Ladybird	African	Euthanized after she lay down and was too weak to get back up	43 years
Zoo Miami	November 27, 2013	Maude	Asian	Severe constipation	41 years
Dickerson Park Zoo	October 4, 2013	Connie	Asian	Euthanized after she lay down and was too weak to get back up	49 years
Little Rock Zoo	September 9, 2013	Jewel	Asian	Euthanized after she lay down and was too weak to get back up, later tested positive for TB	62 years
BREC’s Baton Rouge Zoo	March 31, 2013	Judy	Asian	Found dead in enclosure	46 years
San Antonio Zoo	March 10, 2013	Boo	Asian	Euthanized because of lymphoma	59 years
Denver Zoo	October 9, 2012	Mimi	Asian	Euthanized after she began having difficulty standing and lost the ability to move her trunk	53 years
San Diego Zoo	July 19, 2012	Connie	Asian	Euthanized after irreversible decline in her health	45 years
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo	July 16, 2012	Jo	African	Euthanized after she lay down and was too weak to get back up	42 years

And this chart is not even half of the recorded deaths of elephants, here is a full chart starting from the year 2000, if you would like to see an even clearer picture of how these magnificent animals actually die. This is also just for elephants. There are countless other animals who die just the same. Also, when these animals do pass on to a better life in their cages, it sometimes takes days before anyone even notices. Living conditions for these animals absolutely needs to be taken in to concern, especially after proof from the above chart, they clearly aren’t dying of natural causes. It’s pure animal abuse, and animal welfare must be taken into account. It’s only time before another outbreak of diseases comes around with how our world is functioning today.