The replication of nature in a confined area is the opposite of an accurate portrayal of naturalistic habitats. Despite a professed concern for the wellbeing of animals, zoos can be illustrated simply as collections of specimens rather than an actual home for them. Not only do zoos destroy the lives of the animals that are forced to inhabit them, but they also serve little educational benefit, as they are used as more of an entertainment center than as a learning tool.

“Humanity is the cancer of nature” (Foreman 1). Humanity is being increasingly drowned in excess and as the world demands more, more is destroyed than received in the attempt to displace ignorant cries for another portion of what they can supposedly call theirs. It is only because of a selfish desire for entertainment that zoos are prevalent. In reality, behind the blithesome atmosphere of zoos, there is an underlying channel of sullied corruption which funnels directly into a chain of cruelty for the sole purpose of funds. Funds which only aid in removing animals from their natural habitat to an artificial ‘home’ which is filled with an unfamiliar and unnatural atmosphere, hence influencing them to act differently than if they were in their natural environment. Animals’ natural environment, diet and daily actions are hardly accounted for. This and an utter disregard for the fact that these animals are rarely in contact with humans makes for a veil of the natural, habitual behavior of animals and therefore creates a false impression on how exactly these animals truly behave.

It is argued that the zoos’ purpose is to educate the public on the planets diverse selection of animals. What is not considered however is that when an animal is confined and segregated from their natural habitat, their actions differ completely from their ordinary mannerism and henceforth provide a counterfeit look into nature; zoos are not educating society, they are entertaining them. With the increasing availability of educational opportunities to learn about nature online, traveling to the zoo isn’t truly needed for education anymore. Zoos are manipulative machines that exploit animals to entertain the public in order to receive profit.

Zoos also claim to preserve endangered species. Many of the animals that zoos capture and import aren’t endangered and when they are, they are rarely re-released into the wild. In zoos animals aren’t introduced to many of the obstacles they will have to overcome if intercalated into the wild which weakens the possibility that they will perform well enough to survive in their natural habitat. “Zoos are also pressuring the federal government to weaken the Endangered Species Act to make it easier for them to capture and import animals” (peta.org 2).

Capturing animals from the wild to insert them in a false habitat is not only unnatural, but also detrimental to their health, both physically and mentally. Animals at zoos are closely confined, lacking of privacy, and have little opportunity to exercise. Arising from these conditions are anomalous and in some cases, self-destructive behaviors. Many animals pace within their confines, and when the opportunity arises, many attempt to escape, causing an uproar and great mental anguish to the animal trying to escape. Take for example the issue of captive gorillas depicted within Dian Fossey’s book Gorilla’s in the Mist:

In the wild only some 4,000 gorillas (including all three subspecies) now live in the reputedly protected areas. Advocates for establishing captive gorilla populations thus feel justified in attempting to preserve this most endangered of the great apes in zoos or similar institutions. Because of the strong kinship bonds of gorilla families, the capture of one young gorilla may involve the slaying of many of its familial group, and certainly not every animal collected from the wild reaches its destination alive. Moreover, three times more gorillas have been taken from the wild than have been born in captivity, and gorilla deaths in confinement continue to outnumber gorilla births. I cannot concur with those who advocate saving gorillas from extinction by killing and capturing more free-living individuals only to exhibit them in confinement.

Not only are the animals that are captured from nature torn away from their habitats and family, they are also torn away from their freedom. In confinement they aren’t able to establish the skills in order to survive individually in the wild. The argument of conservation is obviously torn away once one realizes that statistics show quite coherently that deaths in confinement outnumber births, showing the current system of conservation is not functioning effectively. Zoos henceforth are the opposite of conservation since many of these animals when introduced into the wild are unable to cope with the new habitat that surrounds them, devoid of the necessary skills in order to survive. A great number of the animals introduced to their natural habitats do not survive because of this.

Morally, it is hard to view a zoo and state that the animals are at home. Cramped cages, concrete floors, unfamiliar diets and the proximity of these animals to each other are obviously unnatural. Polar bears for example don’t live within 500 feet of both elephants and lynxes. Zoos simply depict the effects of unaccustomed, stressful surroundings in various animals.

Freedom cannot be portrayed in a cage. Accuracy cannot be collected from a false habitat which induces irregular patterns of behavior. Is it truly moral to lock something in a cage for the sole gain of humans? What one ceases to understand is that humanity as a whole is a group of animals as well, parallel to those staring into one’s eyes at the zoo.

Works Cited

Berlin, Ann.  “Collection of Animal Rights Quotes.”  Animal Liberation Front. 11.24.07 

<http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/Animal%20Rights%20Quotes.htm>.

Fossey, Dian. Gorillas in the Mist. New York: Mariner Books, 1983.

“Zoos: Pitiful Prisons.”  PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  24.11.07      

          <http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=67>.

I felt I’d dive right into a topic that’s becoming become less forbidden and pushed on people of increasingly younger ages. Sex is visible in almost all streams of the media, in the seductively toned advertisements that line highways, overpower magazine pages, and consume television commercials. Not only is sex infesting adverts from the inside out; movies have become less cautious as to who its viewers may be. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) currently rates many movies conveniently at PG-13, not because the material contained within them are deemed acceptable for teens 13 and upwards to view, but because this is the generation that makes movie theatres, corporations, etc. the most profit, whereas placing these movies rightfully at an “R” rating would produce far less revenue. So morality is sacrificed for profit in other words. Now, rating a movie “R” obviously does not shield it from the eyes of those under the age of 17, when accompanied with someone over the age of 17, they’re allowed to view the movie in theatres. Yet according to MPAA’s definition of a PG-13 movie and the movies being rated as such there is a slight difference.

“A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.” Oddly, no members of the MPAA are known by the general public and multiple attempts/investigations have been made in order to retrieve this information to determine who exactly is deciding and representing what the “majority of American parents” think is appropriate. The MPAAs wording of this definition leaves a very liberal gap as to what can allowedly be rated PG-13.  Obviously since rating a movie as PG-13 brings more profit, it is found that currently many movies are being rated as such, even though many parents may believe differently. Obviously the MPAA rates movies that would sharply contradict their stated definition, but finagle a great deal of movies into theatres and sales as PG-13. Much blame can be placed on the MPAA, but parents must also realize that responsibility needs to be involved in determining what movies are appropriate even if ratings are misleading. So as movie corporations make more revenue by disregarding the slightly more mature material being released to young teens these generations are becoming adjusted to the mentality that the content of these films are acceptable to regenerate in daily life. This is not to say that there are many other influences, this is but a piece to the current statistics of a sharp up rise in teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, violence, etc. But it’s not to also say that this is not a portion of the problem and debates have recently arisen as to what’s to be done. It’s an issue that is less grounded on certain sides of the political spectrum and more relatable to where people stand on morality or lack thereof and its respective effects on trends in teen life. Sex is of course a much needed part of education, but when it’s pressed on teens that are particularly impressionable at the ages of 12-17, there is a great deal of confusion as to what’s acceptable and eventually many teens begin to believe that the stories they view on television and in movies are acceptable. Parenting is at part to blame, but these industries must also be held partially accountable.

I personally am against censorship and feel that the answer does not lie in that course of action. Instead I feel that a much more strict rating system be used in order to ensure that the material in movies are entirely suitable for the age group attending those movies. A movie should not be chopped apart in order to become an “R” rated movie, but simply be rated NC-17, and the same goes for PG-13. The difficultly comes in the fact that this control is not in the people’s hands but instead on a committee of people whose salaries more or less depend on revenues obtained from the movies they rate. The studios under the MPAA are Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20^thCentury Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. It has formed a monopoly over American media and determines much of the content watched for certain age groups. They’ve been under investigation for their policies on rating as well as its actual members. The MPAA has also been criticized for being more contented with violence than with sexuality. It should also be noted that there is obviously more bias towards homosexual content than heterosexual. The MPAA also routinely censors movies in order to reduce an NC-17 to R rating or an R to a PG-13 rating. Censorship should not occur in order to drive profits upwards.

Returning to advertising, there is a movement currently underway in order to portray more average people in advertising. Sex in advertising is everywhere, whether it’s outright or completely subliminal. Sultry models, shirtless men, exposed cleavage, skimpily dressed women; passionate embraces, etc. are just a few of advertising company’s ploys in order to gain attention to their product. This not only gains the attention wanted but also begins to redefine the “average” person and consistently makes people, particularly teens rethink their bodies, style, and sometimes personality.  This influence that’s arising from advertising is showing growing trends in anorexia and other eating disorders and again a more careless look at sex in general. Although this is much more subliminal than the obvious content of movies and can’t exactly be cured by a more stringent rating system, there are alternatives to what is currently being fed to the public. The styles presented by companies must be represented by models that portray an air of responsibility, contrasted with current models whose lives are frequently plagued by drug use, eating disorders and partying. But again, it must also be partly a parent’s responsibility to explain that realistically the models in the pictures aren’t completely representative of the general population and that there is no need to strive in order to reach the look portrayed since it is usually obtained through irresponsible habits and sometimes disorders. A bigger emphasis needs to be put on individualistic beauty in order to encourage teens to be themselves instead of following all the trends depicted in various advertising outlets.

I feel that although these advertising campaigns do indeed rely on people following trends and purchasing a product simply because of the attractive model using it, that there is a degree of ignorance involved in purchasing a product through this influence. It truly isn’t that difficult to see through these ad campaigns and view the motives behind them. Granted children and teens might not make this connection as easily as adults, but when adults are able to be misled by these adverts as easily as teens then it’s obvious that the minds of the general public can be easily manipulated into certain views of products and trends. (I’ll discuss other uses of this influence in later entries.) It’s slightly pathetic that someone can believe that they can replicate a model if they purchase the jeans they’re wearing or buy the car they’re driving. Advertising companies are making profit from the general public’s ignorance. Not only are these submissively sexual advertisements influencing purchases but they are also influencing a degree of less cautious sensuality in teens that is leading 16 year olds attempting to imitate a 21 year old model. The question remains, is this an act of ignorance on the part of parents or can it all be blamed solely on increasingly sensual advertising?

To turn one’s head and ignore the enormous crises facing whole countries daily is ignorant. Although it’s common knowledge that cultures are being torn apart by conflicts beyond the grip of and sometimes induced by the government; a world unknowledgeable and indifferent is one which is also susceptible to simplistic notions of other nations which could easily be misunderstood/misrepresented with values and customs which are unfamiliar. Hence it is important to take the time to realize that every culture is different but not unequal and when formulating an opinion of the issues plaguing a certain culture, proper and unbiased views are necessary when determining what is best for the culture.

I feel it is also necessary to touch on the subject of the taboo. I’ll bring up specific instances in later entries. Values and traditions which are embedded in a culture are sometimes particularly unusual, but it is important not to judge these traditions through the influences of one’s own values and traditions. Tolerance and acceptance is where peace lies and these entities can only be achieved once prejudice is discarded, the mind subsequently opened to new ideas and a respect thus formulated for differences.

Not only is there this growing gap in what is being told and withheld, but there is also a terrifying apathy towards global issues; this can be noted especially in American media outlets where issues broadcasted seem to be based very ‘close to home,’ not taking into account various other issues the world is facing. Sadly the general public doesn’t care to hear about the destruction, chaos, and horrific atrocitities currently facing the world. To get a much less biased picture of global issues, one must seek other alternatives to American media. I feel that in a world with such grand amounts of technological advances that an end to media bias should be found and that both sides of the story need to be represented equally in order for the public to understand the issues at hand with less narrow-mindedness.

Judging a culture’s actions from a perspective influenced by one’s own culture and its’ norms further widens the gap between culture. Too often are subcultures formed out of stereotypes, titling whole groups of people for either a minor or major aspect of their culture, but regardless of how much of a roll the aspect may play, it is not accurately descriptive or representative of the culture as a whole. Many times cultural beliefs are misrepresented or presented in a way that suggests superiority. I’ll extend upon these points at a later time.

To begin, I’d like to first state that I am currently in college to obtain a degree in International Relations. I think in regards to the set-up of this blog that I’ll devote one entry to each issue that way I can go in depth and hopefully get responses on different sides of the issues. I would also like to keep updates on recent developments in the news on certain events and to post pictures and videos along with my entries. So, stay tuned and if you’re reading this post a comment with ideas!

Thanks,

Garrett