Writitn for Academic Discussion 1. Zoos 2. High School Uniform - revised -

１ Some people argue that zoos play an important role in conservation, education, and research, providing a safe environment for endangered species. Others believe that keeping animals in captivity is inherently cruel, as it deprives them of their natural habitats. Given these perspectives, do you think it is acceptable to keep animals in zoos? Explain your opinion on this question by offering specific reasons and examples.

 

 

☆Read and Think

Material 1: An excerpt from “Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals.” Time.com

Responsible zoos and aquariums exist to facilitate and promote the conservation of animals. And the need for intensive conservation campaigns is now more urgent than ever before: Our world is currently in the midst of the “Sixth Extinction,” a term coined by Elizabeth Kolbert in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. Unlike the five preceding die-offs, which were precipitated by natural events—such as those that killed off the dinosaurs, exterminating three-quarters of all species on the planet—the current mass extinction is a result of human activities encroaching on wild spaces.

Today’s zoos and aquariums are uniquely positioned to combat those evolving threats. Using robust and sophisticated breeding programs, these institutions fund and facilitate countless initiatives to propagate species and preserve genetic biodiversity, and then reintroduce critically endangered or extinct species into the wild. Consider the Arabian Oryx, a striking breed of antelope from the Arabian Peninsula. The species was hunted to extinction in the wild nearly four decades ago, when the last wild Arabian Oryx was shot and killed in 1972. The Phoenix Zoo helped lead the ensuing breeding and reintroduction programs, which ultimately birthed more than 200 calves from just nine individuals. Now between Oman and Jordan, there are about 1,000 Arabian Oryx living in the wild.

The Arabian Oryx—which has since been removed from the endangered species list—isn’t alone. Breeding programs at zoos and aquariums have since saved numerous other species from extinction, including the European bison, the red wolf, and the Oregon spotted frog.

Even when animals are never introduced into the wild, placing them under human care can still improve the lives of their wild counterparts: Modern zoos and aquariums serve as bases for observation and research, which then helps protect wild animals.

One compelling example is the study of animal infection and disease, currently the subject of numerous ongoing research projects at zoos worldwide. The Zoological Society of London, for instance, is developing innovative methods to assess the risks of animals contracting disease when they’re reintroduced into the wild. Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington is leading global research efforts on the detection and treatment of the sometimes-fatal elephant herpes virus, with the ultimate goal of developing an effective vaccine to be administered to the species in both zoo and wild populations. And the San Diego Zoo retains a staff of 20 experts dedicated to the study of treating wildlife diseases that threaten conservation.

Of course, the positive contributions of zoos and aquariums in conserving wild animals cannot—and should not—outweigh the health and well-being of the animals living under the care of these institutions. That’s why American Humane Association is launching a global initiative to elevate the welfare standards of zoos and aquariums worldwide. The Humane Conservation program will be the first third-party certification devoted solely to verifying that animals living in these institutions are healthy, positively social, active, safe, and living with proper light, sound, air, and heat levels. And these standards will be set not by zoos but instead an independent collection of world-renowned experts in the fields of animal science, behavior, and ethics—a sharp departure from most existing accreditation programs, which are vulnerable to accusations of conflicts of interest and leniency.

To some detractors, the humane certification of zoos and aquariums is an oxymoron. But vast empirical and academic research discredits this black-and-white view. Animals in zoos and aquariums today can live longer, healthier, and richer lives than their forbearers ever did in the wild. Go see for yourself.

 

Material 2: An excerpt from Ethics Guide   bbc.uk

There is more to treating animals in an appropriate way than keeping them healthy. Are we right to use animals as objects? Is it morally wrong to keep animals in zoos?

 

The animal rights answer

It is wrong if animals have rights because:

・it treats the animal as a means to achieve some human end

・it fails to treat animals with the respect they deserve

・it violates the animal's right to live in freedom

 

The animal welfare answer

From the welfare point of view it is wrong to keep an animal in a zoo if the animal has a less pleasant life than it would have outside the zoo.

 

Reasons why people think keeping animals in zoos is bad for their welfare:

・the animal is deprived of its natural habitat

・the animal may not have enough room

・the animal is deprived of its natural social structure and companionship

・the animal is forced into close proximity with other species and human beings which may be unnatural for it

・the animal may become bored, depressed and institutionalized

・animals bred in zoos may become imprinted on human beings rather than members of their own species

・this prevents them fully experiencing their true identity

・although animals may live longer lives in zoos than in the wild, they may experience a lower quality of life

 

There is more to treating animals in an appropriate way than keeping them healthy: It's possible (and used to be common) for zoos to keep animals in perfect physical shape, but in conditions that cause the animals to display serious behavioral problems.

 

Zoos and conservation

But where a zoo is keeping animals in order to preserve a species that is under threat in the wild, and treats its animals in an appropriate way, then this is morally acceptable from the welfare point of view.

 

Some animal activists argue that the conservation argument is flawed. They list the following weaknesses:

・a zoo may be unable to keep a large enough number of individuals to provide a sufficiently varied gene pool for the species to breed without problems

・where animals are rare and hard to breed in captivity, removing specimens from the wild to zoos may

・result in the population falling

・returning animals to the wild is difficult

・the benefits to the overall species population do not compensate the individual animals for the negative effects of living in a zoo

 

 

☆Hints for Points for Discussion

Acceptable

1.        Zoos have educational values. They provide opportunities to learn about life and the importance of preserving the environment. For example, open display shows the characteristic behaviors of animals.

2.        Zoos contribute to studies and protection of wild life. Some endangered species are kept, bred, and returned successfully into the wild. Observations at zoos will help conserve wild animals of the same kind.

3.        Today’s zoos provide a better environment for animals to live in than their natural habitat.

 

Unacceptable

1.        It is cruel to keep animals in zoos. The place animals are kept is unnatural, unclean, and stressful. No matter how much improvement has been made, the artificial environment is no match for the natural environment. Also, studies show that animals have more delicate brain activities, something similar to our emotions and thought, than we have thought. Thus, many might be aware of the situation they are in.

2.        The educational value of zoos is questionable. Animals in zoos look and act differently from those in the wild. Also, to keep animals in confinement is a bad emotional education

3.        The contribution of zoos to conservation is not substantial. Some zoos have successfully preserved a few endangered species, but the project is rather pointless because the original environment of those animals have been lost or changed. Sending them back to nature will either fail or cause other problems. Rather than trying to artificially revive endangered species, reviving the environment is the right way.

4.        Zoos are no better than freak shows that violate animal rights. Humans should evolve to have no zoos in the future. True animal lovers are to go into the wild themselves, not the other way (a)round.

 

 

☆Sample Response

【Thesis】Out of the three points to support zees the professor gives, preservation, education, and research, the first and the last are weak because other institutions can do the job and there is no reason for exhibition for those purposes. Therefore, I am opposed to keeping animals in zoos because the educational value of the zoo is questionable.

【Supporting Details】It is said that people can learn about animals they cannot see around them in the zoo, but most people do not go to the zoo to study. I seldom see people reading the information hung in front of the cage. Also, videos and books will do for the purpose. Interacting with real animals alive may be effective for loving animals, but not essential. Daily interactions with domestic animals like cats and dogs is enough for the experience. At any rate, animals in zoos are different from those in the wild. They look and behave differently. For example, wild birds are not only much more beautiful but also freer to fly than birds in cages. Even those stay within their territory fly in a circle of at least some kilometers in diameter a day, many of them flying more than 100 meters high in the air. Zoos cannot provide birds with the same condition as their natural habitat, and when birds cannot fly freely, they are not birds anymore. The same can be said more or less about other living things in the zoo. Last but not least, acceptance of exploitation of animals for entertainment keeps our moral standard low. It is as serious an issue as harsh treatment of animals for meat. It will hinder our spiritual growth. (276 words)

 

 

 

２ Some people argue that uniforms promote equality and reduce distractions, while others believe that they stifle individuality and self-expression. Given these perspectives, do you think it is better for high school students to have to wear uniforms？

 

 

☆Let’s think

1.      What kind of people wear uniforms? Why do they wear uniforms, or why are they made to wear uniforms?

3.      Which policy do you agree with? Why?

 

 

☆Hints for Points for Discussion

Uniform policy

1.       Uniforms help equal treatment. The policy is fair for students with financial difficulties.

2.       Uniforms make it clear that school is the place to study.

3.       Uniforms are for monitoring. High schools should exercise restrictions on some aspects of students’ life.

 

No-uniform policy

1.       To make students wear uniforms violates their freedom. To make students wear uniform is to control students on school days.

2.       No-uniform policy helps understand and nurture individuality.

3.       By wearing everyday-clothes, high school students can present themselves to others naturally.

 

 

☆Sample Responses

A.

【Thesis】High schools should respect their students’ autonomy and should not force them to wear uniforms.

【Supporting Details】Uniforms are labels because clothing is an indicator of social status. A uniform is an icon of an occupation or a social status, and a person in a certain uniform is expected to play a certain role and behave accordingly. Military officers, medical personnel, restaurant workers, kindergarten pupils, and inmates are in uniforms, and they are expected to behave as society expects them to. A person wearing a high school uniform, therefore, is expected to behave as a minor and act in a way that matches the image of the school. Like a jar of jam with a label, students in uniforms are judged and treated uniformly. This will not only discourage students from having self-respect or modesty but also negatively affects their emotional development as citizens. They are half-adults who are in the period of life when their world view and identity is challenged and reestablished. The uniform policy limits this transformation by explicitly showing that they are watched and controlled, making them uncritical and irresponsible.

【Counterargument-treatment】Although there is a practical advantage that school uniforms lessen discrimination based on inequality as Emily points out, this restriction of individuality is unignorable.

【Conclusion】High school students should be treated as an individual with a distinct personality with freedom, independence, and individuality. School has no authority to limit them. (232 words)

 

B.

【Main Idea】Uniform contributes to fairness.

【Supporting Details】This is because uniforms can prevent wealth gap from being revealed. Under the no-uniform policy, rich students will naturally come to school in high-quality, stylish attire, and poor students keep wearing what they can afford for years. This difference can lead to separation, discrimination and even bullying, Students may not show such problems on the surface, but according to a professor, school is a closed space where even the smallest difference can make one ostracized.

【Conclusion】Till they go to university and acquire freedom to escape from belligerence, high school students, especially the vulnerable ones, need to be protected from it by being in the same clothes as others are wearing.

【Counterargument-treatment】The claim of James that uniforms restricts freedom of expression is true, but students can wear whatever they want during their free time. (137 words)