In recent days, there are several arguments against confining animals to cages and other small enclosures just for the sake of keeping human visitors entertained. Animal rights activists have always insisted that zoos should definitely be banned. Personally, I certainly agree with this view.
To begin with, man has no rights to capture and imprison wild animals in small enclosures. It is undeniable that zoos provide education and entertainment. Both children and adults enjoy visiting zoos because they provide an opportunity to see wild animals without having to go the jungle—not everybody can go on an African safari to see wild lives anyhow. Nonetheless, this is hardly a justification for keeping animals in zoos.
Further to the previous paragraph, wild animals thrive in the wilderness. Any attempts to remove them from their natural habitats is unethical. Instead of building zoos, the government should develop wild life sanctuaries and national parks. The general public interested in seeing animals can go on guided jungle safaris. The thrill that one experiences when one sees a lion or tiger in the jungle cannot be explained in words. Zoos do not provide that kind of excitement or adrenaline rush.
My final opinion is that zoos do not help animals in any ways. Of course, there are people who believe that zoos are required to protect endangered lives; however, I doubt that this argument holds water. Take this example for consideration, when African wild animals are brought to zoos in India or Europe, they extremely struggle hard living in the different climate and ecosystem. Regrettably, some die since they cannot adapt to survive in their new environment.
To sum everything up, I certainly agree with the view that zoos should not exist in this century. It is true that they provide some knowledge and entertainment; in contrast, we have absolutely no right to confine animals to small enclosures solely for our advantages.