Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Animatronic Zoos
There’s a great scene in the comedy film Fierce Creatures involving a panda.
Vince McCain, the billionaire playboy put in charge of increasing profits at his father’s latest acquisition, a zoo, reveals its latest addition. Zookeepers are initially ecstatic at the unveiling of a panda exhibit. Then they notice something that raises their hackles.
Zookeeper: “You can’t put an animatronic [robotic] animal in a zoo!”
Vince: “Why not? It gave you a thrill.”
Zookeeper: “It’s not a real thrill, is it? It’s artificial.”
Vince: “Having pandas in England is artificial.”
He’s right. And it’s not just relocation of animals that makes a zoo artificial. Animal lifespans are often shorter in captivity. Practically limited diets and habitats can affect behaviors and even appearances. Having to listen to a wild bird or monkey enclosure every day would certainly change my behavior.
We have the technology to create entirely animatronic “zoo” attractions today. Decades ago, venues like the Houston Museum of Natural Science hosted robotic dinosaur exhibits which were popular. Animatronics continue to be shown … at much less expense than live exotic animals, I’d bet. Even the largest and most predatory “creatures” of this kind can be viewed up close and without spacious enclosures.
Consequently, let’s consider a few questions:
- In addition to traditional zoos, might there be a respectable market for robotic facsimiles?
- In lieu of live animals, could robotic replicas serve almost as well?
- What conditions might favor one or the other?
A typical animal in a zoo is not a pet. You can’t touch it. You can’t play with it. You just look at it. Half the time, it’s asleep, hiding from the weather, or otherwise not putting on a good show. Why not replace it with a robotic stunt double?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
There are things that CGI, for example can’t do, that’s why we know they’re CGI. These things have bothered me for decades, ever since I saw a lemon detergent commercial and a woman holding a plate and I knew there was something wrong with the plate, and it turned out to be a CGI plate that then showed the woman’s smiling face in the reflection.
I was a kid the first time I saw a cassowary at the Bronx Zoo. It was marvelous. Prehistoric, huge for a bird. The way it walked and stalked and looked around. It’s glaring eye. It’s dirty-looking sagittal crest. It was incredible. Except there it was.
When they’re all robots, where’s the mystery and the marvel? And what stops us from knowing zoos can be simply creating something close but not quite the same? Or new creatures altogether? My zoo will have the world’s first captive unicorn pair.
Typical short-haired common cat has an average life span of 3-6 years in the wild and 20 or so in-doors (world record is 36).
Now a house cat is a tiger in mind only, but this is not to say tigers can’t be properly kept healthy and happy in captivity, they just usually aren’t.
I am in favor of keeping animals in natural-like habitats for conservation and research, znd reserving zoos for animals who are damaged or otherwise unable to fend for themselves.
One of my most exhilarating moments was driving through Lion Country Safari. We stopped in the lion pen and I rolled down the window. And there was a majestic lion there staring at me. And there I was with nothing between me and the lion but my wife in the passenger seat. I wish I had a picture.
Seriously though, at the same place they had Chimp Island, a hill surrounded by a moat. (Chimps are too dense to swim.) I think it was far better than cages.
I love the idea. Let animals live in presereves and let us see realistic enough AI driven ones in 20 years.
Come on, Aaron. You know this is a bad idea. It didn’t work with Yul Brynner.
People are going to die.
And I’m sorry. I still keep seeing Jim Carrey coming out of a rhinoceros.
I originally intended to note that wilderness is brutal and many animals of short longevity in zoos would simply be eaten or die of disease/starvatiom in the wild. Capturing animals, like hunting them, requires moderation and respect. But zoos are fine.
I’ve driven through Arbuckle and a couple other safaris here in America. Ostriches pecked at their reflections on our tinted windows. A giraffe stuck its head inside the passenger window to steal some feed in a bucket. A bull licked my sister with its big blue tongue.
You won’t get experiences like that from robots.
On the other hand, you won’t get run down by a warthog, as happened to some ladies at an open zoo here recently.
All part of the show.
No, they’re generally longer, given the prevalence of predators and the lack of veterinary care in the wild.
If it’s not live animals I think you just put on a VR headset and watch them that way. Why even have a physical zoo?
Ah, yes. And I’d I never have to leave my cubical… ever.
To quote Jurassic Park:
I will say, certain animals could be replaced with animatronics now. Koalas in particular already sleep 20 hours a day due to a diet of mainly narcotic leaves.
I don’t foresee going to a facility, dealing with traffic and parking, and standing in line just to look at fake animals.
I might send a robot, though.
People go to art museums stuffed with bad “art” and pretentious commentary. Why not a “zoo” that, while lacking real animals, offers twice the variety in half the walking space, thanks to savings on upkeep?
Incidentally, the last zoo I visited kept a velociraptor statue in the middle of a small pond, between the tigers and camels. The alligator didn’t move an inch either, but that’s probably because he ate a compy.
Why have zoos at all?
There are animatronic zoos already throughout the Nation…. Chuck E. Cheese.
You mean twice the variety found in nature?
Imagine the cost of capturing, licensing, sheltering, feeding, and otherwise arranging for a tiger. Or you could build and maintain a stationary but animated robot replica of a tiger.
If the latter is as much cheaper (long term) as I suspect, then the place could afford a second robot. It could be another tiger or it could be a jaguar, a lion, or anything else.
It could even be a recently extinct animal; like a Tasmanian tiger, an Irish elk, a dodo, or a moa.
Plus, a real animal needs space to move around. But you could fill a room with robots that looked the part.
It should be noted that almost no zoo animals are captured anymore; they’re bred in captivity.
All my favorites were caught by John Wayne.
Could they eat one another?
Could they eat one another? Not that I… care… really much.
So why have any sort of animal in captivity at all? Dogs, Cats, Birds, Cows, Chickens, etc can all be replaced with virtual or animatronic versions as needed.
Truth be told, you could just make one sort of amorphous four-legged animal, and we could just imagine what the real animals looked like.
I don’t like it. Slippery slope. Today it’s animatronic zoo animals. How long before someone comes up with animatronic sex partners?
Oh, wait . . .
OK. I live on a farm, so my life is, in some ways, very “organic.” Therefore, I have to ask:
Would they poop “animatronic” poop? Would it smell (authentic)? Would it stick to your boots, and could you wipe it off? Would you have to employ animatronic people with animatronic shovels to clean it up? Would it be biodegradable? Is there such a thing as “animatronic fertilizer?” For growing animatronic plants?
What’s the opposite of animatronic? Inanimatronic? Is that the same thing as what used to be called “real?”
These are all the thoughts that are running through my head.
Carry on.
On the upside you wouldn’t have to worry about alimony. Yet.