Even if zoos did as much conservation work as they claim to, it won't do much good with all the continued habitat destruction.

Doug Stanhope sums it up perfectly

Most of all Zoos will gladly sell you meat products right next to their closest "protected (because few)" relatives while going on about conservationship. If Elephants were common, they'd sell you that shit, too.

All of the listed things are generating income from access to captive animals. They are inherently exploitative.

Would you pay to visit captive humans if the reason for their captivity was "they can't survive on their own", "it's what's best for them?" or "it's for research"?

Animals sanctuaries that are doing their best and are not speciest can exist, but the animals are residents and are not displayed.

I don’t zoos as a concept just in general especially nowadays.

You can either:

Go to a zoo and watch a sad animal sleep all day

Or

Watch hours and hours of high definition video the same animal doing neat things in their own habitat.

I'd like to take a different approach than what information I usually see people give about the inhumane treatment of captive animals. And that is why is it acceptable to have animals in captivity for the sake of our enjoyment? The animals that get put in zoos get put there because people get enjoyment out of seeing them. Its not about conservation or however zoos try to play it up as. If it was for conservation, then why is there a lion in fucking Kansas instead of their natural habitat?

And sometimes people will describe zoos as a transactional thing between us and the animals. Like "we give them food and shelter, so looking pretty is the least they can do" kinda thing. And why is that appropriate for animals but people consider it bad of you said the same thing about women, or kids, or literally anything else.