DLC 19 Speculation

[Villanelle]

Breaking news! 2 other European zoos will receive golden snub nosed monkeys in 2025

It’s the zoological breakthrough of the decade. Now we need to get them in The game for real

Maybe an Endangered animal pack?

View attachment 411972
View attachment 411973

Nice!

It's so weird that China loans its animals. Does it do this with any species other than pandas and GSNMs?

It looks like it raises a lot of money to fund conservation and breeding programs for the species, as the zoos have to pay a hefty fee to borrow the animals. Any babies born abroad have to also be returned to China at the end of the lease term.

What do you guys think about this system?

 

[USzoofan42]

Thanks for pointing out the mistake with the tree roo, I'll fix that, as for the other picks they are pretty good, personally I would rather a Geoffrey's Spider Monkey over both Tamarin and Snub-Nosed Monkey but I was just trying to be consistent with the intital post that gave me the idea, anywho great stuff no complaints, besides you taking away my sweet Lowland Anoa, I will get my revenge for that.

Why not decimate the hyrax population to add them to the pack?

 

[Marvinb]

Nice!

It's so weird that China loans its animals. Does it do this with any species other than pandas and GSNMs?

It looks like it raises a lot of money to fund conservation and breeding programs for the species, as the zoos have to pay a hefty fee to borrow the animals. Any babies born abroad have to also be returned to China at the end of the lease term.

What do you guys think about this system?

I think its a million per panda per year if i remember correctly, and i think i have mixed feelings about the situation.
Pandas are probably the biggest visitor magnet youre gonna get as a zoo, so being able to display them might be worth the "rent", and if said money actually goes to fund conservation efforts thats a nice thing. But i cant imagine its also a million for the monkeys, is there anything known about this?

But on the other hand i always really dislike artificial scarcity. I hate it when companies do it with products and i also dont like the thing itself with the pandas, although since its ultimately for a good cause im fine with it.

 

[Doran]

It looks like it raises a lot of money to fund conservation and breeding programs for the species, as the zoos have to pay a hefty fee to borrow the animals.

It doesnt.
Panda loans are basically one huge scam with conservation only used as a cover. Turns out all the money go for new roads in China and architecture.

 

[Mr-Hyrax 2]

Why not decimate the hyrax population to add them to the pack?

Now that is a good idea, that's the kinda thinking the people at frontier need.

 

[Cooper_yang]

It doesnt.
Panda loans are basically one huge scam with conservation only used as a cover. Turns out all the money go for new roads in China and architecture.

That's interesting, where did you get the news?
For a moment I didn't know how to reply you... Let me put it this way, the money from the panda rental is not enough to support any infrastructure project in China that is a little bit well-known. China has the longest high-speed railway network in the world. The construction of these railways costs an average of 100 million RMB per kilometer, which is about 13 million US dollars. What can China do with the money from the panda rental?
A world's second largest economy actually relies on a few animals to pay for infrastructure? This is the most interesting, but also the most ridiculous point I have ever heard.

 

[Veah]

What can China do with the money from the panda rental?

At least for me, I think that it obviously should exclusively go into nature protection issues. But the whole concept of renting animals and having to return them from time to time is very bad IMHO, the final destination of the money is only a slight difference on bad or worse.

 

[Cooper_yang]

At least for me, I think that it obviously should exclusively go into nature protection issues. But the whole concept of renting animals and having to return them from time to time is very bad IMHO, the final destination of the money is only a slight difference on bad or worse.

I think we can discuss whether the form of leasing can be changed. This is fine. This is everyone's right. But it is ridiculous to say that this money should be used to build infrastructure in China. One million US dollars cannot buy a house with a slightly better location and an area of more than 90 square meters in cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen. This amount of money is negligible compared to China's huge economy.

 

[Doran]

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/panda-loans-dont-actually-benefit-panda-conservation.492603/

Least shocking news ever.

 

[USzoofan42]

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/panda-loans-dont-actually-benefit-panda-conservation.492603/

Least shocking news ever.

Agreed.

 

[nutrit]

Thanks for pointing out the mistake with the tree roo, I'll fix that, as for the other picks they are pretty good, personally I would rather a Geoffrey's Spider Monkey over both Tamarin and Snub-Nosed Monkey but I was just trying to be consistent with the intital post that gave me the idea, anywho great stuff no complaints, besides you taking away my sweet Lowland Anoa, I will get my revenge for that.

 

[The_Riot22]

I agree that I find the idea that a country "owns" it's animals in captivity to be very much anti the idea that preserving nature is a global issue.

And it also prevents a good portion of the world from being able to enjoy in person the animals you have in your country. I wouldn't be a fan of the US preventing any other country from being able to keep the Alligator Snapping Turtle in their zoos for example. Seems dumb and petty to me.
I'm assuming they did this to prevent outsiders from coming in and capturing a bunch of their wild animals and taking them away, but you can prevent that from happening without your government "owning" all the captive animals.

 

[USzoofan42]

I agree that I find the idea that a country "owns" it's animals in captivity to be very much anti the idea that preserving nature is a global issue.

And it also prevents a good portion of the world from being able to enjoy in person the animals you have in your country. I wouldn't be a fan of the US preventing any other country from being able to keep the Alligator Snapping Turtle in their zoos for example. Seems dumb and petty to me.
I'm assuming they did this to prevent outsiders from coming in and capturing a bunch of their wild animals and taking them away, but you can prevent that from happening without your government "owning" all the captive animals.

coughs in chinese and austrailian

 

[Mr-Hyrax 2]

View attachment 412124

I love conflicting information, joking aside thanks for informing me, sense I am way to lazy to do proper research.

 

[Iben]

What do you guys think about this system?

I genuinely think it's a good system.

If it's indeed not used for wildlife preservation (which, by all means, given the current climate of China vs the US I'll take with a grain of salt) then that's of course bad; but the idea behind it would be good for lots of countries around the world that currently do not have the funds to protect their local wildlife.

I agree that I find the idea that a country "owns" it's animals in captivity to be very much anti the idea that preserving nature is a global issue.

I don't think it's fair to just narrow it down to "a country owns its animals in captivity", but I see it more as "zoos being forced to reinvest in the areas of the world that they got their collection from".

Zoos today are not obligated to participate in conservation programs, they chose to do so and luckily loads of them do; but overall in terms of conservation efforts it would be a much better system that if a zoo displays a bunch of animals from for instance Kenya, that Kenya gets a piece of the revenue to then reinvest it in their local wildlife preservation.

Of course, let's face the facts here, the way our capitalistic world is setup makes it impossible to do so without massive amounts of zoos going out of business; but I think that approach is still very much the opposite of being "anti" the idea that preserving nature is a global thing. In fact, it makes it more of a global thing where we all work together and all do our parts to help each other rather than just helping very specific programs.

 

[The_Riot22]

Zoos today are not obligated to participate in conservation programs, they chose to do so and luckily loads of them do; but overall in terms of conservation efforts it would be a much better system that if a zoo displays a bunch of animals from for instance Kenya, that Kenya gets a piece of the revenue to then reinvest it in their local wildlife preservation.

From what I understand is that China "leases" the animals to other zoos. Meaning that China can take them back, and also they own the rights to the offspring of those animals.

That seems definitely a step further then "Kenya gets a portion of the $$ generated from the animals" - which is a system I probably would support.

 

[Cooper_yang]

Hahahahahaha, sorry, but I really can't help laughing.
The New York Times! Just "New York Times"! I thought such a confident accusation came from some rigorous research report, but it turned out to be just New York Times!
Okay, let me talk about it at a relatively long length this time. I have to state in advance that I have no intention of discussing too many topics related to international politics and ideology in this community. To be honest, I am tired of it. In recent years, these topics have been discussed in many communities and online platforms. PZ is one of the few relatively pure places. I don't want to destroy this atmosphere, but since this "news" is too ridiculous and ridiculous, I feel that I need to say a few words.
I have three questions:
"Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"
"Did Michael Jackson commit those unforgivable things to children?"
"Can Donald Trump win the 2017 election?"
To be honest, if I want, I can find hundreds of examples of media like the New York Times that swore but were later proven to be completely lies, but I don't want to waste my time. Obviously, it would be stupid if we say that all the reports of the New York Times are false. But it is equally stupid to say that the New York Times report is all true. The absurdity of this news really opened my eyes. The total "panda rental" in the world is less than 100 million US dollars. For a country with a population of 1.4 billion, it is really a drop in the bucket. With the increasingly tense relationship between China and the United States, how did the author of this report get reliable data and draw his own conclusions? Is there really a spy like 007 James Bond who came to China at the risk of his life, just to investigate the whereabouts of the panda rental money? Please, if Hollywood screenwriters write like this, they will probably starve to death.
China is a country with a population of 1.4 billion and a land area of 9.6 million square kilometers. What is the concept of 9.6 million square kilometers? It takes more than 5 hours to fly from Shanghai to Urumqi by direct flight. In such a country, what level of resource investment is needed to promote infrastructure construction? I think any rational adult has some reliable answers.
The absurdity of this news... How can I describe it? It's like I want to buy a Ferrari sports car, and someone gives me a $5 voucher, and then declares to the outside world that he has made a huge contribution to my buying this car. What should I say?
At present, China has opened up a visa-free policy for people from many countries to come to China, and it has become very convenient to travel here. Come to China and see for yourself. This country has a strong side, but also has shortcomings. But in the final analysis, this is a normal country, not a "hell" or a "devil's cave". Ignoring the transportation costs, if you don't have to stay in a 5-star hotel, then 2,000-3,000 US dollars is enough for one person to travel in China for a week, to see everything in this country with your own eyes, and don't blindly believe the media. With the current tense atmosphere between China and the United States, if it continues to develop, I believe that one day there will be a media that says that the mastermind behind the assassination of Kennedy was China.
Unless there are more ridiculous views, this will be my final answer to this topic. This kind of baseless stuff is really boring and a waste of time.

 

[Villanelle]

For the sake of argument, taking the agreement at face value, I'm trying to figure out if it is a good system that could be replicated anywhere else, and whether that would be in the interest of the greater good. Here are what I think are the main points on both sides:

Pros:

• Could raise significant funds for the conservation of the target species.
• Good way for zoos to build hype and drive extra ticket sales while they have the animal on loan (but also hefty cost for them up front, so financially riskier).
• Theoretically builds international diplomacy and goodwill between nations but this really depends on transparency of records and mutual trust.
• Provides visitors with an experience that perhaps motivates them towards behaviour change that helps protect the wild (but this would also be true if the animals were not on loan but part of a global breeding program like most zoo animals).

Cons:

• Animals don't see borders, they don't claim nationalities. Can we say that a country "owns" the wild animals that live their own lives on that land? There are philosophical/spiritual/ideological mindsets against this and I lean towards them.
• What about now that most captive animals were born to captive parents, far away from their native environments? What countries do they 'belong' to, if any?
• It is unusual for a species to be native to only one country. It gets complicated beyond pandas...there aren't that many headliner species that come from just one country are there? Aside from Oz. Some Tiger subspecies maybe? Bornean Orangutans would be a good example but they span across Malaysia and Indonesia. So which country gets the benefit of the financial arrangement? Could create conflict and encourage poaching across borders to reduce populations to a narrower range.
• Transporting live animals is risky, expensive and uncomfortable for the animals. Is it in the animals' best interest for them to be moved at the end of each loan term?
• What about when they go from one really spacious, enrichment-filled and cared for place, to a lesser place? Do they get depressed?

Overall it seems a complicated and inefficient way to support and promote conservation. Zoos are finding lots of clever ways to raise money...at London Zoo recently we were able to pay £15 each to feed the penguins. We got a handful of sardines each and posted them down tubes into the pool so there was no physical contact and the penguins were in control of how much contact they wanted to have with us. Imagine the profits from £15 for a few sardines! That money was going of course towards a program for their wild counterparts and gave us a discount in the shop. Micro-transactions like that are a great way to eek more out of your visitor's wallets and make everyone feel good, especially the penguins! In contrast I'm not convinced that the pandas love racking up the air miles. I don't think its in their best interest and I don't think that's the point of it either, but shouldn't it be? Surely the whole point is to make a better world for the animals, and we can do that for the captive ones as well as those that still remain in the wild (or nowadays, in national parks)...

 

[NZFanatic]

The idea of "owning" anything to do with nature is ugly in itself, just as the idea that we are somehow "separate from" (never mind "above") nature is utterly abhorrent yet seems incredibly normal to most people.

There's a theory that the reason humanity as a whole seems to be becoming increasingly unhinged (rampant anxiety and depression, nihilism, antisocial behaviour, and so on) is because of our attitude towards nature. We're a part of it, we're supposed to be working with it. Our very nature rejects its destruction yet we do it anyway and celebrate doing so in the name of making some stupid rich person richer. There's also a solid number of interpersonal relationships a human being can handle - that number being 150 (IIRC). Our massive urban centres very obviously exceed that, which is why we tribalise internally and find it so hard to give a damn about other people in general. It's also why there's generally a level of public pageantry involved in empathetic sentiments - we're trying to convince ourselves we care by showing off to other people.

Anyway, that number (150) also happens to be the number most militaries use for groupings (I don't know the correct terminology - platoons? Battalions?). Exceeding it too much breaks the social fabric and causes cliques to form, and then the whole thing falls apart.

A lot of it goes back to our buried primate instincts, really.

And I am aware of the irony of dicussing such things on a forum dedicated to video games made by a corporation.

 

[Villanelle]

The idea of "owning" anything to do with nature is ugly in itself, just as the idea that we are somehow "separate from" (never mind "above") nature is utterly abhorrent yet seems incredibly normal to most people.

There's a theory that the reason humanity as a whole seems to be becoming increasingly unhinged (rampant anxiety and depression, nihilism, antisocial behaviour, and so on) is because of our attitude towards nature. We're a part of it, we're supposed to be working with it. Our very nature rejects its destruction yet we do it anyway and celebrate doing so in the name of making some stupid rich person richer. There's also a solid number of interpersonal relationships a human being can handle - that number being 150 (IIRC). Our massive urban centres very obviously exceed that, which is why we tribalise internally and find it so hard to give a damn about other people in general. It's also why there's generally a level of public pageantry involved in empathetic sentiments - we're trying to convince ourselves we care by showing off to other people.

Anyway, that number (150) also happens to be the number most militaries use for groupings (I don't know the correct terminology - platoons? Battalions?). Exceeding it too much breaks the social fabric and causes cliques to form, and then the whole thing falls apart.

A lot of it goes back to our buried primate instincts, really.

And I am aware of the irony of dicussing such things on a forum dedicated to video games made by a corporation.

Heh I saw a documentary about that 150-group size thing and it said that some human brains were adapting to be able to handle relationships with much larger community sizes, like 400-600. But it was only apparently about 5% of people. God knows what study was done to suggest this...must have been an episode of Horizon from aaaages ago so don't quote me! I'd be a 150-type person anyway. Better yet 50. Or 5. Or 4 and a dog.