Certain individuals think that it is cruel to keep non-human species in confined spaces like a zoo whereas the other outlook points to the advantages for both human and non-human species. I tend to conform to the second view but both will be discussed in this essay.
First and foremost, when animals are caged they are denied their right to wander and do as they please, just as they would do in the forest. They have rights too and this has been the main debate forwarded by many anthropologists and human rights groups in the world. For example, one zoo had to be shut down in Norway as environmental apologists argued that such places were going against the natural ecosystem rules regarding flora and fauna.
On the other hand, however, there are benefits for both people and other animals when the latter are housed somewhere. Firstly, people can get to enjoy the scenery of nature whereas the animal species will no longer have to search for food or worry about their safety in the jungle. Many cannot get enough of the sight of snakes nor want to skip lunch sessions when lions are being fed. It is food for their eyes. Furthermore, animals are given food, medical attention and protection in these facilities and this even prevents their extinction. For instance, in my perspective, had the Pangolins been ‘captured and confined’ in the eighties, Zimbabwe would still be a tourist hub of Southern Africa today.
In conclusion, therefore, I argue that despite rights-based narratives, the pros that can be singled out from domesticating wild beasts are far more important than the cons. This position has been explained further in the essay above.