Grade: Priya Sharma

Zoos are wrong. Animals shouldn't be in cages for our entertainment. I've felt this way since I was a kid and saw an elephant swaying back and forth at the zoo - my mum said it was dancing but even then I knew something was off. I want to build a strong case for why we should close zoos.

Visited Auckland Zoo for this project. Went expecting to feel angry but it was more complicated than that. The kiwi nocturnal house was genuinely focused on conservation - those birds would be extinct without breeding programmes. But the primate section still made me uncomfortable. One orangutan was just sitting against the glass staring at nothing. I keep thinking about the difference between those two exhibits.

My position got more complicated. I can't just say 'all zoos are bad' when some exhibits are clearly doing conservation work that matters.

Talked to my uncle Ravi who's a veterinarian. He mentioned that Auckland Zoo's breeding programme for the shore plover brought them back from 80 birds to over 250. He also said some species literally cannot survive in the wild anymore because their habitat is gone - so the 'return them to the wild' argument I was going to make doesn't always work. This is uncomfortable because it means zoos might sometimes be the lesser evil.

The conservation argument is stronger than I wanted it to be. Some species have no wild habitat to return to. My uncle's expertise forced me to take this seriously.

I think I've been asking the wrong question. 'Are zoos ethical?' is too broad - like asking 'is medicine ethical?' The answer depends entirely on the specific zoo and what it's doing. A better question is: 'Under what conditions is keeping an animal in captivity justified?' This reframing changes everything because now I need criteria, not just a yes/no answer.

Completely reframed my question. Moved from a binary debate to developing evaluation criteria. This feels like genuine progress even though it's harder.

Started developing criteria. One thing that bothers me: even 'good' zoos need revenue, and revenue comes from visitors, and visitors want to see exciting animals not just endangered native birds. So conservation zoos still keep crowd-pleasing animals (big cats, elephants) in conditions that might not be ideal, to fund the conservation work. The conservation funding argument for zoos might actually depend on the entertainment argument I find unethical. This is really uncomfortable.

Discovered an uncomfortable dependency: conservation funding at zoos relies on the entertainment model I object to. Can't separate the 'good' parts from the 'bad' parts as easily as I thought.

I've landed somewhere I didn't expect. Whether a specific zoo is ethical depends on evaluating it case by case against clear criteria - species conservation impact, animal welfare standards, educational value, whether alternatives exist for that species. There's no universal answer. Auckland Zoo passes on most criteria for its native species programmes but I'm less sure about its exotic animal exhibits. This 'it depends' answer used to annoy me when teachers said it but now I understand why - because it genuinely does depend, and pretending otherwise is intellectually lazy.

Arrived at a per-case evaluation framework instead of a universal position. Accepted that 'it depends' is sometimes the honest answer, not a cop-out.

Liam challenged me in class today. He said my framework is just fence-sitting and that I should have the courage to take a clear position. I sat with that for a few days instead of reacting. He might be right that frameworks can be a way to avoid commitment. But I think in this case the framework IS my position - that universal statements about zoos are wrong in either direction. The courage isn't in picking a side, it's in accepting complexity when everyone wants you to simplify.

A classmate challenged whether my framework is genuine thinking or avoidance. After reflection, I believe accepting complexity is itself a position that takes intellectual courage.

Final reflection. I started this project certain that zoos were wrong. I now think some zoos do essential conservation work that can't be replicated any other way, while others are primarily entertainment venues that cause animal suffering. My 7-criteria checklist helps distinguish between them. I want to be honest about something: I still feel emotional resistance to zoos even when they pass all my criteria. That gut feeling was what started me on this topic, and I haven't fully reconciled it with what I've learned. Maybe that tension between evidence and instinct is something I'll keep working through.

Final position acknowledges both the evidence-based framework and my remaining emotional resistance. Being honest about that tension feels more genuine than pretending I've fully resolved it.