I advise checking out the users other comments before jumping to conclusions. Doesn't look AI generated to me, rather just an "individual" writing style. Only because it's possible doesn't mean its true. Maybe user can confirm?
Oh, I didn't see it got flagged... Breaks my heart every time to see this happen when someone gives a voice to the voiceless. Then again, I would have disagreed with myself only 3 years ago, before I took some time to inform myself about ethics, especially in regard to non-human animals. Wish I'd have done it sooner...
My world view would be classified as "ethical", because I take the feelings and desires of others into account and don't put myself before them - which you, on the other hand, don't. And this is the exact same reason why humans exploit animals in every possible way imaginable, reasoning with all kinds if "pseudo-arguments" that don't hold up a logical and ethical consistency check.
"Because they are animals" is not an argument. The singular fact that you state that humans aren't animals implies that you are lacking even the most basic knowledge in biology. Given that, I can understand that applying ethics on top of that is currently too much to ask.
After all, maybe a good documentary film, that actually deals with these topics, could help you with that. I can assure you that no zoo will.
What makes you think that fish are in ANY way different than land animals or even humans? Why should they not suffer from being captured and not being able to live freely in their natural habitat?
In what way is my POV biased? What you describe is a purely egoistic attitude. Ask the question: Who does this serve?
Your answer might be: primarily the animals (this includes fish). But this is not true, as the only reason we would have to conserve any species in the first place is because we humans (almost) drove them to extinction by e.g. killing them for profit (e.g. leather, ivory, etc.), burning their habitat for animal feed (which happens when you eat land animal meat) or by overfishing (which happens when you eat fish). Either way, the reason is not valid because the root cause is driven by human behavior, which almost all people causing it could change it in an instant - but they choose not to. Why? Because their pleasure is more important than non-human animals' lives.
Hence, the answer is: the humans who pay for it. It only serves the entertainment of humans at the cost of the (non-human) animals.
Kids visiting a zoo for sure don't consciously think "its OK to capture animals for amusement", but they get subconsciously conditioned by the fact that it is portrayed as "normal".
My guess is that you never researched about how zoos work. If you did, I promise you will be shocked what happens behind the scenes in order to "give kids a view into a world beyond the one in which they live day-to-day".
Slaughtering animals for food is indeed a much bigger problem and probably one of largest issues we currently have - ranging over ethical issues, environmental issues, health issues and socioeconomic issues.
However, this does not mean that "smaller" problems are somehow not worth mentioning/tackling. IMO zoos, just like TV shows for children in which cartoon animals are portrayed to live happy lives on farms, happy cows on products, etc. are all tiny little but VERY effective weapons for the industry to manipulate people into thinking that using animals for profit is actually good, because the animals are said to be so happy. The opposite is true.
There are absolutely no positive benefits for people and especially children to visit zoos. Quite the opposite is the case:
By visiting zoos, children get taught at a very early age that it is OK to capture animals and use them against their will for amusement purposes / profit. They get presented the animals in a completely unnatural habitat. Most of these animals have developed mental disorders due to their situation.
Please feel free to read some of the research on this - there is plenty more:
Do you have any study or something supporting your claim that this/such a zoo's benefits outweigh the cons?
I am well aware of its worth avoiding harming animals. This includes capturing them, holding them against their will, using them, forcibly breeding them and killing them for profit and food.
I have also been to many zoos in my life but I only got this perspective by watching educational documentaries, reading up on the topic and, most importantly, applying simple reasoning, like: "Would we do this to humans? Would I volunteer to be in their situation for the rest of my life?"
One can be ignorant in different aspects. In various situations, one walks around with blinders on. One "only sees what one wants to see", because the brain filters out everything else that does not match ones world view - which is based on ones knowledge and, especially, beliefs. Psychedelics can act as a trigger (as can other things as well) to temporarily remove these blinders, making one able to see/feel/experience things the brain always ignored before, ONCE. Now, that one has "seen" it, one can choose to incorporate this into ones world view and daily life. There are many stages to this, which are part of the "therapeutic process" of psychedelics.
No, I was not trying to imply that. I was saying that praising to not want to change ANYTHING about the way a system works is a way of being happily ignorant. Psychedelics have a way of forcing you out of this ignorance and for some people this seems very scary (because it means change - and many people don't like change).
It is is a structural problem that goes much deeper than what the author thinks. "Sticking to the process" is good and important to SOME (!!!) degree for sure. However, doing this blindly will (1) prevent further progress/advancements and more importantly (2) ignore existing problems. The issue with the latter is that one is deliberately ignoring (e.g. ethical) issues, because it's very difficult to unsee things, once they are seen. Furthermore, by being ignorant, one can easily withdraw from responsibilities (which one actually HAS but lies to themselves that they don't.
These are just a few though about the very complex topic ;)
It is quite obvious that the author has absolutely no idea what psychedelics are, what they can do and what they are used for (both recreationally and therapeutically). I am wondering why anyone would think they are in an adequate position to write anything about a topic, even though they neither did proper research whatsoever on the topic nor have their own experiences in the matter. This is equivalent to throwing garbage out into the world.
My favorite part:
> I would rather get execution right, and remain on the same mental track I have been on. I also don’t want my priorities re-ordered, or suddenly to feel that now I have grasped the true nature of the universe, and that x, y, and z are in fact meaningless. Let’s stick with the process, people!
Having this mindset sets you up to a gloriously ignorant life. It is basically programming yourself to lie to yourself until you die and be happy with it. You are scared to find out the truth, because it might hurt in one way or another - or set you free. Nothing truly great ever came out of this - but the exact opposite...