I agree... Zoos and Parks like Sea World prevent the whole "Out of sight, out of mind" problem for animal conservation.
PETA is definitely not there to protect animals. They kill animals themselves. If they would have it their way, no animal would be a pet or in a zoo. Heck, they even said to boycott a few videogames... Battlefield 3 for killing a rat... yet you're killing humans in the videogame. Super Mario wearing a "Tanooki" suit. Why? because they said they don't want to promote wearing fur... yet they don't realize that a Tanooki is not only a real animal in Japan, but a mythical shape shifting creature that is found around businesses in the form of a ceramic statue similar to the Western Garden Gnome.
PETA has a clear agenda that aligns with the left. They are in sync with those that believe in global warming and evolution. You can say their actions are consistent with their beliefs. That you disagree is rather convenient, but if you do believe in global warming, stopping commerce with animals is entirely consistent. Once the theme park business ceases, animals are protected (according to them) and precious fossil fuels are conserved with no one visiting. Carbon gasses are not produced. An apparent WIN WIN for the leftists.
Finally, I don't believe we need these zoos and animal habitats. They are nice to have, but not essential. Nonetheless, most of these animals are rescued and can no longer be returned into the wild. I support the theme parks that take care of them.
Clearly they know it might not always be about Shamu, hence the increased number of rides/attractions and holiday offerings. Now get on improving/updating Wild Arctic's movie ride!
In light of recent incidents, I think it's hard for a lot of people to imagine there being a special "bond" between humans and whales like Believe depicted. So they should sell us on the bond between people and dolphins/penguins more.
SeaWorld, and zoos to an extent, make an emotional argument for conservation and wildlife protection. Animal advocates work in other media, sure, but seeing the animals in person packs the biggest emotional punch.
Take that off the table, though (and trust me, that is PETA's agenda), and you're left with just those logical, scientific arguments as to why far-off animal habitats need protection. Good luck getting Americans to agree with any of those. Our recent track record suggests to me that evidence and data don't convince nearly as many Americans as emotional appeals do.
(And by the way, vaccinations don't cause autism or mental retardation. Global warming is real. And humans evolved from lower primates. If those statements of fact conflict with your belief system, so be it. But your belief system doesn't make those facts any less real, and I don't really care what bogus rationalizations anyone cares to cite in opposition. I needed some real-world examples of people ignoring real science in favor of emotional beliefs to provide analogies for this piece, so that's why I went there with those examples.)
Global warming is a fact, but if it is caused by man is an open issue. Certainly liberating billions of tons of carbon prisoned by nature hundreds of millions years ago does not help preventing it (if we want to prevent it).
Earths and human age, in the other hand IS NOT an open issue. Calculations may not be accurate, but we are talking respectively of billions and millions of years, not thousands.
But you are right in one thing when you say that all this environmental stuff is a leftist thing. While USA loose time with futile discussions about global warming, “”communist”” China invest heavily in clean technologies to dominate this future trillion dollar business.
Robert hits the nail on the head that Sea World makes real to millions of people the ecology of the oceans and its challenges in a way that TV screen and books cannot. It is a valuable experience and I'm very happy to see that Sea World's upcoming projects and attractions feature animals and not coasters and cheesy flat rides.
But the argument isn't over global warming. The argument is much broader, and encompasses much more than whether individual temperature sensors have shown increasing readings or not. Do actions of man have an appreciable effect on the climate? Are the current trends in climate a problem or not, and can we even answer that question? If they are, do we have ways to actually change things? And if we can, is the cost of that change more or less than the cost of doing nothing?
That the argument made is "global warming is real, so we have to take action" reveals that the argument is not based on science. It is a political and philosophical argument using a piece of scientific information as a hook. In the 70s, the piece of information was a new ice age.
But seriously, I don't visit theme park web sites to get into a scientific debate over this issue (not that there's a problem with it -- I would love to get the entire population of this country talking about those questions, because we need people to do more critical thinking, and less reacting to sound bites).
I also don't come here to argue politics, or different historical mythologies. Evolution encompasses a good deal of specific pieces of scientific information -- the origin of life is really an historical and anthropological question that involves speculation and guesswork, wrapped in competing scientific evidence. Scientific theory is about repeatable processes. Origins is like crime scene investigation -- you can apply science to make better guesses, but in the end it's just probabilities. If you see a pack of pencils on the table, and a dozen of them are spilled out on the table, and one is on the floor, you can apply your scientific knowledge of gravity and hypothesize that the pencil rolled off the table onto the floor. But if it turns out someone walked by and picked the pencil up off the table and laid it on the floor, your science wouldn't be wrong, just your guess). Anyway, I'm not arguing evolution here either.
The problem with trying to pick analogies to illustrate your point is that you have a viewpoint, and if others don't share that viewpoint, your analogies pick unnecessary fights rather than supporting your cause.
But Niles, you are certainly right that people are moved to help animals by what they see at Seaworld, and at the San Diego Zoo, at The Wilds in Ohio, and other places where people care for animals and also showcase them to the public (I am a huge fan of and donor to zoos). And I think you are probably right that this is an emotional response that is stronger than any scientific pitch you could make. I just think you can say that directly.
Back to the discussion, I am not opposed to aquariums and zoos. In fact, I enjoy them quite a bit, but not for any high-minded, conservationist reasons, just because the animals, attractions, and shows are sometimes really cool!
Regardless, almost no one on this site goes to SeaWorld Orlando for the real animals. It is the fake ones, Kraken and Manta, that compel us to visit. You think anyone would pay upwards of $80 a head just to see a "fish"? It would do SeaWorld some good to invest in an assortment of highly detailed animatronics and add more killer rides instead of killer whales. That's the way to keep SeaWorld viable in the era of Potterland.
Wow, I think Jake Rivers just reared his head in my latest response... rides over attractions...what am I saying?? =)
I call this article 'brave' because it is so much easier to take the 'hater' route and believe the propaganda and twisted words of PETA and other "environmental" activists. I applaud you for calling out organizations like PETA who only have political agendas, and waste their supporters money on silly PR stunts. PETA is neverheadlined in the news for actually saving animals or protecting habitats; and as someone already mentioned they just wasted a ton of money chastising Nintendo for Mario's raccoon outfit!
I also applaud you for rational critique of OSHA. There are many other professions that have dangerous aspects to their work, and it is apparent that OSHA is not treating SeaWorld equally compared with other similar incidents. Even within the zoological community, OSHA is comming down harder on SeaWorld then any other zoological park in history- all without merit. I hope SeaWorld wins this case, not only because I love and support the parks, but because OSHA should not legally be able to pick and choose to harshly fine and restrict one company or facility more than others.
I don't see this from the article. Perhaps PETA has this as the end goal, but its a long way from here to there.
At minimum, Sea World would have to change its procedures to prevent trainers from being in the water with the animals. There's nothing about abandoning the animals or stopping the shows.
There shouldn't be any deaths. There always seem to be a few deaths here and there. I'm not convinced Sea World did much to improve the situation as the article states little was done.
As for the premise of the emotional argument versus the scientific argument, why are you conceding that Sea World lost the argument? PETA will win neither arguments. As for the scientific argument, I haven't heard any for which "logic" hasn't prevailed. I agree "far-off animal habitats need protection", but this does not preclude man-made habitats that rehabilitate and rescue animals, as well as educate the public on animal conservation.
Sorry, this attempt at alarmism is worst than anything PETA has done.
The rising global investment into renewable energies is indeed due to increasing awareness of climate change - however, it is also becoming a HUGE industry and expected to rapidly rise within the next few decades. Companies are cashing in on this scare - whether it is true or not. I personally believe in the precautionary principle, however, one shouldn't make assumptions on the attitudes of countries towards global warming by the investment into renewable energies. Oil companies have been undergoing name changes calling themselves 'energy companies' and are too investing in renewable energy - renewable energy is becoming in vogue.
Anyway, back on to topic! An interesting article with a few controversial arguments there - all good to inspire some intellectual conversation! To a comment somewhere above - I don't know if I would compare PETA to the taliban! PETA is an influential organization with a belief, beliefs do not necessarily mean religion. The Taliban is an extremist Islamic militant and political group. Comparing them is in injustice to some of the good work that PETA arguably do.
I agree with SeaWorld's standpoint and the view that these parks promote conservation - however, organisations like PETA are also trying to promote their own messages. A high profile case like this is a perfect way to do it - it doesn't matter whether they win or lose, their standpoint is clear.
Long post over!
Honestly, you degrade your article when you state things as fact when they are in fact not. Global warming is a theory and there is as much scientific evidence that supports it as their is evidence that disputes it. The scientific community is very much divided on this issue. There also has been a lot of evidence that has been presented by climatologists that has since been proven to have been manipulated and been false. It's funny how the pro-global warming crowd just ignore that FACT.
The planet is millions of years old. That's a fact. So it's pretty arrogant for a human being who on average spends less than a hundred years here to claim that they know all about what is happening. How the planet evolves and changes is one of those things that I don't think we'll ever fully be able to understand or predict.
Mother nature has proven herself to be more powerful than humans. We destroy or damage things and miraculously she fixes them and life lives on. If global warming is in fact happening then I suspect it is not the result of human causes, but just part of the way the Earth is always changing.
The global warming fanatics are very much like PETA. They want to impose their will on others. They want to alter the way people act, live and behave. Many dislike capitalism, and the benefits of a capitalist society. Most importantly though I don't believe many really give a damn about global warming and the environment. Global warming is just a facade for their real cause.
Zoos and Wildlife parks are instrumental in helping species survive that may otherwise be extinct. They serve a purpose. Support those institutions that are accredited!