Are zoos an anachronism in the 21st century when we can watch animals from our couches in close-up in their natural habitat without worrying about cruelty? Should they go the way of other bygone era ‘spectacles’ and ‘attractions’ that we now regard as barbaric? There are vocal campaigners and activists who believe so. Heather Browning and Walter Veit disagree, but they acknowledge there is a case to be answered. In What are Zoos for? they test the common justifications for zoos (entertainment, education, research, conservation) against the evidence and suggest what the best zoos of the future should look like to ensure that they are primarily for animals and not just for people.
Animal ethicists have traditionally argued that zoos should be abolished. Defenders of zoos typically answer by arguing that animals do not matter morally, or matter much less - or that, at any rate, human interests should prevail. Browning and Veit defend a middle way: animals matter, but zoos - if properly arranged and run - can treat animals with due regard. The book is very clear, and could be easily used as an introduction to debates in animal ethics, animal welfare, and/or the ethics of zoos and captivity. The authors advance an interesting argument. My main worry is that they treat what I deem a crucial concern (i.e. the culling of animals in zoos) a bit too quickly and a bit too late in the book. Other than that, strongly recommended for those potentially interested.