Zoos are Doing More Harm than Good
By Ayushi Gon
Zoos are monumental in the human paradox. They are windows to the wild, and at the same time, silent, sunlit, and custodial prisons made out of and for human curiosity. For centuries, these institutions have been labeled as educational and conservationist centers. It takes a humanistic view— rooted in empathy, the value of freedom, the moral obligation of reducing suffering, and injustice—to ask, what our civilization is doing, should we save a species? (Jamieson, 1995).
The simplest and devastating argument against zoos is that the cost of the spectacle is the soul of a living, breathing, and sentient being. The sheer brutality of the price we ask is often overwhelming because we imprison these sentient beings, shackled by instinct to travel great distances, and outfitted with the sophisticated and socially complex structures of a hunter. Polar bears traverse thousands of miles of ice in the wild, and then are given enclosures that may be one million times smaller than their natural range (Ballard Brief, 2025). How does it help the animals?
This profound deprivation leads directly to Zoochosis, a human-made psychological disorder characterized by repetitive, compulsive, and meaningless behaviors in animals. This isn’t simply “quirky behavior”; it is a glaring red flag of mental distress (World Animal Protection US, 2025).
Big cats, wolves, and bears trace the same paths, hour after hour, a tragic, never-ending patrol of their confinement. Orcas in marine parks have been documented grinding their teeth on concrete tank walls due to extreme stress. Elephants, the highly cognitive and social animals that mourn their dead in the wild, often sway rhythmically to show a sign of deep-seated boredom and anxiety. As philosopher Lori Gruen suggests, captivity strips animals of their autonomy and bodily freedom, reinforcing a dangerous idea of human superiority over the natural world (Sentient Media, 2025). If we recognize animals as beings capable of feeling fear and pain (Rollin, 2006), then the moral burden of causing this institutionalized suffering is too great to bear without absolute, verifiable justification.
Regarding the ethical accusations directed at zoos, the most common reply concerns their mission, the "Ark of Last Resort" for endangered species. Yet, recent, painstaking investigations contradict this assertion, indicating that the reality of zoo operation fails to reach this lofty moral imperative. While flagship zoos field excellent programs, critics note that a large portion of institutional spending—some sources state as little as 3%—goes to in situ (field) conservation (Born Free USA, 2025). Most of the money is spent on "hi-tech exhibits and marketing" to entice visitors (Animals Australia, 2025). There is also research indicating that zoo breeding programs do not consistently focus on the most critically threatened species. More often than not, species are chosen for their popularity among the visitors (Born Free USA, 2025). A small number of critically endangered species are held in accredited facilities, and the breeding focus is said to still be aligned with true conservation necessity (Animals Australia, 2025).
If a moral argument based on conservation fails budgetary and marketing obstacles, the humanistic imperative, the avoidance of suffering, prevails. We need a radical ethical adjustment guided by Compassionate Conservation (Miller et al., 2024) that doesn’t simply leave us with the option of “open the cages” or “keep things as they are.” For every zoological institution to justify its existence, it needs to adopt the contemporary "Six Cs" (Kearns & Miller, 2024) approach to animal welfare and move from mere survival to flourishing:
1. Coping & Comfort, the animal needs to manage its environment and not incur chronic stress.
2. Choice & Control, the animal should have real, meaningful options regarding its daily routines (e.g., when to eat, where to rest).
3. Challenge, the animal needs to solve stimulating, ecologically relevant puzzles (e.g., complex foraging).
4. Compassion, the well-being of staff, and the animal must be a priority
While each facility fails to commit to this standard, the public must learn about the impossible natural world through true sanctuaries, immersive technologies that are not harmful and are not encumbered by analog means to exploit or breed the animals. (ResearchGate, 2025).
During the age of extinction, some species may sadly have no choice but to use a zoo, but that does not justify imposing unnecessary psychological suffering on the individual. It is our duty to hold accredited institutions to the highest possible standard and encourage their unfulfilled mission to choose the profound humanistic challenges of compassion and freedom instead of the convenience and entertainment of captivity.
Animals Australia. (2025). Are zoos ethical? Here are 4 things we need to stop telling ourselves.
Ballard Brief. (2025). Mistreatment of Wild Animals in Captivity.
Born Free USA. (2025). Breaking the Bars: A New Years Resolution to Not Visit Zoos.
Britannica. (2025). Zoos | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Scientific Research, & Conservation.
Jamieson, D. (1995). Against Zoos. In Defence of Animals. Blackwell Publishing.
Kearns, N., & Miller, L. (2024). Key Concepts for Enhancing Zoo Animal Welfare: Coping, Comfort, Choice, Control, Challenge, and Compassion. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science.
Miller, D. S., Dudzinski, K. M., Anthony, R., Hill, H. M., & Stafford, G. (2024). Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare, Ethics, and Behavior. Animals, 14(11), 1552.
ResearchGate. (2025). (PDF) A Discussion on Ethical Status of Zoos: Do We Really Need Them?
Rollin, B. E. (2006). An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics: Theory and Cases. Blackwell Publishing.
Sentient Media. (2025). Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained.
World Animal Protection US. (2025). Zoochosis—The Cruel Reality Behind Captivity.