The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
SeaWorld - Are animals rescued or captured?
in Science
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
Okay, let us get serious...
Suppose one day aliens invade Earth and take you away. Their reasoning is altruistic: they want to save you from the life on this cruel planet. So they move you to a sterile environment somewhere in the Psi System. They feed you well, they provide quality medicine, and as a result your life expectancy is many centuries. You live in a small enclosed space, entertaining the alien tourists.
Would you feel rescued, or captured, in this scenario?
See, one can only be "rescued" provided that one needs the rescue. You cannot "rescue" someone against their will. Putting someone in a glorified jail does not look much like a rescue, does it? Now, I cannot read the mind of a dolphin from the SeaWorld, but it is not a stretch to assume that the dolphin would rather cross the oceans, than entertain tourists in a tiny pool for food.
At the same time, I would argue that the SeaWorld and other similar establishments serve a good purpose, even if the methods are relatively barbaric. In our everyday lives, we are not exposed to animals much, and those animals we are exposed to regularly (geese, squirrels, deer, pigeons, skunks, etc.) we treat as pests anyway. But when someone gets into a zoo or an aquarium, everything changes: they see animals they would never see otherwise in all their glory, and they experience a strong sense of connection to them.
However ruthless it sounds, the (compared to the wilds) terrible conditions those several killer whales live in in the SeaWorld may, in the long run, save thousands of wild killer whales. So, while I do feel sorry for the whales, I would like the narrative of the animal rights activists to be a bit more temperate. They need to be able to see the other side of the issue, to be able to offer compelling solutions to the problem. "Demolish all aquariums and zoos" is clearly not a solution.
Finally, we cannot release the captive animals in any case: killer whales deprived of the experience of learning how to survive on their own in the wilds would quickly die to one of the thousands deadly things in the ocean, were they released there. While I would agree that building new aquariums and zoos and actively capturing animals to feel them with would, at best, be controversial, for the animals already in captivity the best we can do is to make their living conditions as good as possible. The wild world is closed to them forever, and as sad as it is, we must accept it, for their good.
And in this regard, the US, Australia, New Zealand and other zoo/aquarium kings have done a stellar job. Jail is jail in any case, but the jails built for the animals in these countries are absolutely fantastic. I was in the Houston Zoo a few weeks ago, and the animals there genuinely seemed happy - that is, as far as I could tell from their behavior (they obviously could not smile). They are well taken care of, fed well, treated medically well, and a lot of personnel is attached to watch over them and entertain them. Captive animals in these countries are as good as they can be, and that is something to be commended.
And even more so, many zoos and aquariums are actually to thank for certain species not having gone extinct. A few wolf subspecies would be history, had it not been for a conglomerate of zoos making it a point to preserve them.
To summarise, it is all very complicated. One thing though is certain: the captured animals themselves can in no way be considered "rescued". They may contribute to the preservation of their species, for example, but they themselves are nothing more than captured trophies, and we better acknowledge the facts, than try to whitewash them. Acknowledging the facts will only be better for the animals in the long run, as well as for us.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
One of the arguments from the Rescuers is that they provide medical care and nourishment to the animals. To your point though they can’t be considered rescued.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: excellent argument    medical care   Rescuers   arguments  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: massive bodies of water    apex predator   human standards   bucket of fish guts  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: whole truth    cruel thing   triple service   rescue  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think you make a good point here. There's no way to avoid the double standard of rescuing. Rescuing is captivity. For wildlife rescue to happen, there needs to be money. To get the money, the animals need to perform, or showcased for the public's amusement. If the animals are made to perform, they are being held captive. But sea world is trying to turn a huge profit, unlike zoos which try to keep the emphasis on rescue, and they don't really make the animals perform at zoos. The opposite end of this spectrum would be circuses which put the emphasis on performance. I guess I'd put sea world in with the circuses category. They do have rescue in mind, but in the end, they gotta get them papers!!!
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sea world    wildlife rescue   opposite end of this spectrum   huge profit  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't see it as just raising money and turning a profit. I see the point you make about zoo's and circus and can agree with that idea without much convincing. The balancing act at see world is in raising a creature at the top of the food chain. Though possibly before your time outside of sharks the killer wales main food source is seal so when removing a animal that hunts to live removing it from that process of physical conditioning, keeping it active to keep the mind and body working is a intricate part of overall health. Not that I am justifying all treatment of animals in sea world there are many animals from the oceans which just do not do well in captivity.
If that make sense.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: see world    balancing act   main food source   treatment of animals  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra