Being respectable zoos, I hope we can all recognise that other animals have the ability to make decisions based on what they themselves desire. After all, many of our points for zoophilia focus on the idea of free will; humans usually disregard it when there is economic gain to be had (not unlike human slavery, one might say). For example, we never ask an animal's permission whether they would mind being artificially inseminated, kept in insufficient living conditions, slaughtered for food, for fashion, or for sport in the case of bullfighting, yet we do all these things and more.
But what about when artificial insemination good?
Just recently I was watching an episode of a television series that give a (very broad) overview of life for animals and zookeepers at Chester Zoo in England. To my disappointment and discomfort, it focused more on the captive breeding side of things rather than the social lives of the animals, or the relationships between them and their keepers. Personally, I'm split 50-50 when it comes to literal zoos, since I don't really like seeing other animals in cages or exhibits no matter what shape or form or name, but at the same time they are places of safety for endangered species.
On this particular episode, they had transferred a zebra stallion to the mares' paddock where the keepers hoped he could father some foals. By the next day, he'd effectively been teamed up on and kicked out of the herd, so the keepers transferred him back to his old paddock and, in interviews, expressed their disappointment and said it was essentially the mares' fault.
So for the longest time I was stuck there with an open mouth and a raised eyebrow thinking to myself, "Wait, hold on. At the start of it all you were essentially telling those mares to, quite literally, 'get fucked', all without their go-ahead, and you get annoyed because they're not enthusiastic?"
Back on topic, my question is simple: is it better to respect the free will of any animal, or is it better to think of the greater good when it comes to breeding matters of endangered species? I mean, if I was put in a situation where the fate of humankind was placed in my hand, I'd rather choose for myself what I would prefer to do rather than have someone else make the decision for me.
I hope I've done this topic justice.
I just wanted to say this is a pretty deep discussion, and I will think about it some and come back to this with thoughts!
I see where you´re coming from here, but IMHO you missed the point. It´s not about free will or the greater good here, it´s about human impatience and seeing animals as a biological automaton. As a part of my apprenticeship, I had to learn some breeding basics and one basic principle is to be patient with your lifestock if you decide for natural conception instead of AI. Mating procedures in equines depend very much on mutual acceptance and being familiar with each other; a single period of 24 hours usually does not suffice to form relationships between equines. A stallion has to be familiar with the mare and vice versa. Just transfer the scenario to humans for a moment: would you expect a woman to become pregnant or even allow intercourse if you throw a random man into a female group? getting to know each other, "sniffing" the other´s scent, becoming familiar with each other...all of that takes time and patience. The general mistake was seeing the animals as some kind of chemical element you just have to mix to create a chemical reaction. But that´s not how it works.Humans seem to be unaware of the fact that animals are ver similar to them, especially when sexuality and procreation is involved. The mares may just have considered the stallion as "no father" material, as some human females also seem to do with some individuals. As in most f the cases, not the animals, but the humans are to blame for little to no real understanding of animal behavior and interpersonal mechanics. It will surely take a long time to alter this way of thinking and one can only hope for some kind of quantum leap that takes insight on another level ad hoc.
Before I answer, I should lay out my bias/method here. Ethically, I tend to be a utilitarian, meaning I focus more on the consequences of actions, and how the different parties would be affected by them, than any specific principle or virtue. This means that the idea of individual autonomy is something I will consider, but don't consider sacrosanct in all cases.
That said, this species is classified as vulnerable (likely to become endangered) according to wikipedia. There may be an argument that preserving it for future generations to enjoy, particularly in the wild, is a net benefit. Introducing a new stallion to the herd, and allowing the mares to accept or reject him as they please, doesn't seem to be a problem for the humans ethically. They would face the same choices in the wild, but with more environmental and predatory threats.
There may be a point later in this scenario when artificial insemination is used, and although it may involve a good deal of stress for the mare chosen (especially birthing pains), this is no different than it would be in the wild, except with fewer risks due to the presence of proper veterinary care.
Many human interactions with animals are immoral, especially when animals are confined and neglected for the merest human benefit. But a small-scale rehabilitation of an endangered species benefits them through their continued existence, and benefits us through scientific knowledge and aesthetic pleasure. And as I said earlier, without tangible benefits to the animals, the concept that they should be free to roam in principle is not really a concern of mine. This particular case is a bit rude, but doesn't strike me as immoral.
I think the same.
The way I see it, the "greater good" is a human construct. Why do you assume the preservation of a species to be something that is unquestionably (the greater) good? Forcing animals to reproduce to save a species from extinction results in a preservation of biodiversity, a concept that is only understood (and cared for) by humans. Species, biodiversity, extinction, etc. are all things that only make sense to a human mind. Animals don't care. And forcing them to care by bypassing their agency and free will is, in my opinion, ultimately a very selfish thing. This is especially true considering that the reason that many of these species are going extinct in the first place is human activity.
I think we do it to "clear" our own conscience. After realizing how many species we've driven to extinction because of our bullshit, we now take it upon ourselves to protect those who are endangered. But again, species, biodiversity, ecosystems and etc. are only concepts that are understood by humans. And even then, it seems that they are not very well understood (or cared for).
Being a human however puts you in a different position. You are capable of understanding your part as something bigger. If the fate of humankind was placed in your hands, you'd have the power to understand precisely what is at stake. From that point, whether you decide to act on your own agency or let your actions be dictated by somebody else is your own choice. But, as they are unable to grasp their relation to something bigger such as their species, animals cannot make such a choice.
So to answer your question, I think that free will is what should be respected above all else. The keepers are basically expecting animals to mend the mistakes of humans and get exasperated because they do not comply. In no way is this their responsibility.
"Respectable zoos" HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHhahahahah
breathes in
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAH