In this article (“To Save Some Species, Zoos Must Let Others Die” by Leslie Kaufman), I read about tough decisions that zoos have to make. Basically, this article was about zoos making decisions to determine the animals that they will rescue first. However, the problem is they need to sacrifice the other animals if they want save the animals. This is the part where I don’t really understand. I thought “Instead of killing one animal to save one animal, why don’t they save both of them?” Actually, there is a ways that all of endangered animals can be rescued. Zoos can release the animals that are doing fine in wilderness, then they can let the endangered animals to stay in the zoo. But, there is one problem: money. Zoos not only need animals, but also they need some entertainment that will attract the visitors. Therefore, there are some animals staying in the zoo even though they are doing fine in the wilderness. For example, African elephants and California sea lions are one of the example of animals that are staying in the zoo for entertainment. I think the big message of this article is sometimes you can’t have everything you want to have.
While I was reading this article, I also connected this with the project that my group is working on in humanities. In the project, my group is required to advertise and research about environmental issues around the world. While I was researching about environmental issues, I realized that humans were the ones that hunted animals. But now, humans are trying to save them, which is very ironic. Anyway, if I was in the zoo’s situation, I would assign every zoo a endangered animals that they need to rescue. Since there are 214 zoos in United States, United States can save 214 different kinds of endangered species. My plan does not guarantee that it will solve the problem, but I think it will rescue at least some of animals. However, if humans keep destroying nature and animals, they will get paid for it in the future.