From this description, the major functions of zoos are to maintain the animal species contained therein for safeguarding, learning, or display to the general community. Therefore, it is from such a definition that the immorality or morality of the issue can be weighed.
As such, one of the issues that make zoos be viewed as immorality is the fact that the animals kept there are taken out of their natural habitat. This means that as much as the zoo management may try to replicate the natural environment of any of the species, it never really recreates it in the exact manner especially due to space constraints. This results in the animals being confined in a small area, thereby making it more like a form of imprisonment. Additionally, the care provided at the zoo may not be what the animal actually needs (Lee and Holder 2007, p. 189). There are certain elements of the wild that are never fully met. Despite these drawbacks that tilt zoos towards immorality, the establishments have helped in the study of numerous species. This has been essential in tackling elements such as diseases that may threaten animal existence. From this, therefore, the immorality of zoos, or otherwise, is subject to the perspective from which it is viewed.
Tree Huggers is a term that is generally used to refer to individuals who are highly passionate about the environment to the point that they can literally do anything towards its conservation. The term originated from a past where individuals could actually hug trees so that they could prevent them from being cut down. They would achieve this by hugging the tree at precisely the point where the lumberjack’s axe is about to strike (Lee and Holder 2007, p. 267). Since then, the term “tree hugger” has been used to refer to people who are passionate about the environment. This act of tree hugging culminated into movements aimed at environmental conservation, extending well into the contemporary society.