Questions Week 2

1. Linnaeus’s taxonomic method of classification was utilized in zoos by displaying animals in a very clinical and ordered way that existed outside the spectrum of a natural order. Much like a flouriest would arrange a bouquet of flowers, aesthetics of human understanding were made paramount over the consideration of the animal’s livelihood. 

The idea of  “stamp collecting” is problematic because animals cannot live in confined and organized arrangements, nor be exchanged and rearranged so easily as inanimate commodities. Where stamps are designed to travel long distances, animals are the products of specific environments in tandem with very particularly adapted tolerances to its ecosystem. Ultimately, this has lead to health and behavioral issues as the location of animals is dictated by institutional glorification, currency, and architectural accommodations.

2.  The introduction of exotic animals in zoos and menageries in the 17 and 1800’s were meant to inspire fashions and grandeur of social events. The hopes of acclimatizing zoo animals to new lands were meant to encourage learning and improve agriculture. They also became symbols of hierarchical class and boasted material wealth.

With the rise of the middle class, the dawn of industrialization, and the promotion of zoological gardens, these trends became ideal centers for outdoor recreation for the public and a welcome natural reprieve from the progressive urban society. They became accessible as the lines between the upper and lower class was filled and propagated a fashionable venue for the masses.

3. Public demand yielded surplus animals, continuation of training and abuse, and constant shipment and trafficking of animals without regard for the creature’s livelihood. Many animals that were not meant for domestication were sold off as “novelty” despite the dangers of primordial instincts and temperaments.  Some are sold for the purpose of “safari” hunting experience. Zoos participated in this deprecation by over breeding, separating babies from natural parents for profit and commodity exchange. Despite the guise of “authoritative institutions,” zoos often remained ignorant of methods of care and the use of animals as money’-making exhibitions.

Looking at Lincoln Park Zoo’s history, they too struggled against the inability to provide adequate space and disregard the natural effects the environment has on their animals.  Buffalo were purchased in mass with the auspices of rebuilding populations, and later sold off as the space became oppressive. Elephants too succumbed to health defects and poor tolerance to adverse weather conditions. Though it has come a long way in lieu of pressure for better animal treatment.

4. According to Berger, we look at animals for a variety of reasons. One is that of spirituality, a sort of kinship shared by living creatures on the planet that share ties in mortality. The proximity of interworking natural connectivity has given rise to interaction both through domestication and in a predator/prey context. Ultimately, humankind has projected upon animals, human qualities in an attempt to understand, venerate, and dominate.  These connections are parallel, but not exact because the human brain possesses greater cognitive power; and though at base processing levels, animals register humans, their discernment is not of “moral” or intellectually inquisitive value.  And furthermore, behavioral “tricks” are merely the result of conditioning, base-learning principles of action and reward.

I agree that animals are at their present state, incapable of reaching a state of “humanity” or an intellectual tier of connectivity in their gaze. But I would argue that genetically, humans are only a miniscule percent away from chimpanzees, though through that tiny percent of variation, exponential possibilities open up, and one could imagine that it is possible that animals could achieve a higher potential.