Every afternoon until the early 1970s, a table laid with cups, saucers and a teapot would be set out at London Zoo for the chimpanzees. An amusing set piece was anticipated: chimps throwing crockery at each other and jumping on chairs.
However, there was an early complication.
Chimpanzees are exceptionally good at mastering tools. They quickly learned to use the pot correctly and would sit politely at the table, taking afternoon tea.
Illustration: Mountain People
“When the public tea parties began to threaten the human ego, something had to be done,” Frans de Waal wrote in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? “The apes were retrained to spill the tea, throw food around, drink from the teapot’s spout.”
Being fast learners, they excelled at this, too — establishing a routine with comic flair, popping the cups in the teapot when the keeper’s back was turned. The ruse worked. Contemporary newspapers reported the animals behaving with their “usual unselfconscious abandon.”
The chimps had done something unnerving in those early days. Their display of competence challenged not only the egos of their audience, but the very premise of the zoo itself. If animals were capable of sense or even sensibility, the collection of cages and cells might start to look a little sinister. Less like innocent entertainment, perhaps, and more like a sadistic sort of prison.
It was in the interest of zoos to teach customers the opposite lesson. The zoo became a place of fiction, a sort of anti-educator. It could not quite tell the truth about the animals it housed.
It is strange that these days zoos like to think of themselves as educators: This is often a mission statement, a primary defense.
Last week, an appeal by actor Joanna Lumley to free the UK’s 50 captive elephants — they are being physically and psychologically damaged, it said — was rejected by the CEO of Chester Zoo. Lumley’s claims were “outdated,” as modern zoos are enlightened places, a “million miles away” from how they were half a century ago, and crucial to conservation, he said.
Is he right? Perhaps what he does not say should be noted: That elephants do suffer in zoos. It is hard to avoid the fact that these places still make animals miserable, particularly large and intelligent ones. Elephants, big cats and primates plainly do not enjoy captivity.
Even airy modern enclosures decorated with grassy slopes and pretty vines cannot hope to replicate the infinite richness of life in natural surroundings. Animals pace, rock and scratch themselves, and often die young.
A surprising number of zoo animals are on psychoactive drugs. In 2000, a survey of North American zoos found that almost half were giving their gorillas Valium to help them cope with their lives of sterile monotony.
Any defense of modern zoos, therefore — like Chester’s outraged statement last week — tends to contain a sort of unstated bargain. Yes, our inmates might be miserable, zoos do not quite say, but their sad sanitized lives serve a higher cause: grand conservation projects and the education of the public.
At the price of one caged elephant, we can save many more in the wild, and meanwhile, nurture generations of animal lovers, who might one day become conservationists themselves. For this, people first need to see animals in the flesh. Like capricious ancient gods, before we will show mercy and kindness, humans require a sacrifice or two.
Yet even this barbaric bargain does not quite add up. Zoos are expensive to run; they do not generate huge surpluses of cash for good deeds.
The Born Free Foundation says that, of the UK’s biggest charitable zoos, just 4.2 percent of profits go to field conservation.
Even zoos that claim to donate larger amounts fail to explain why it is necessary to keep some animals in cages to save others. (Captive breeding for release into the wild seldom works, especially when done thousands of kilometers from natural habitats.)
Zoos are, after all, the offspring of menageries, collections of exotic animals kept by the powerful. There is no historical, or logical, link to conservation.
It is in their claims to be educators that zoos really fall short, as a century of animal research trends in a single direction: That people have vastly overestimated our own specialness among the creatures with whom we share the planet.
Cooperation, theory of mind, tool use, planning, perceptions of time, grief, fear, empathy and friendship — the range of species in which these “uniquely human” capacities have been discovered has grown wider and wider.
Zoos are obliged to teach the opposite lesson. Once a person knows that behind bars languish intelligent, sensitive creatures, zoos become the sort of day trip only a sociopath would enjoy. So instead, as people pass through the gates, there has to be a process of unknowing these facts.
The zoo must help visitors construct protective fictions — that these pacing, twitching animals are perfectly happy, or behaving just as they would in the wild, or so unobservant that the painted jungle behind them serves as a substitute for the real thing. Within these essentially Victorian constructions, then, attitudes inevitably bend toward the Victorian idea that animals are basically automatons, a collection of reflexes, unable to really feel anything at all.
Yet can zoos inspire people to become conservationists? Unlikely. After all, conservation is rooted in the philosophy that humans do not have a natural dominion over other species, or the right to use them as we will. Zoos are founded on the opposing principle — that of humans as consumers, animals to be consumed.
“Adults take children to the zoo to show them the originals of their [soft toy] reproductions,” English novelist John Berger wrote.
It is where they go to learn that animals are not fellow creatures, but things.
Martha Gill is an Observer columnist.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS