[Feature: Rethinking Zoos] Roundtable Discussion: Re-evaluating the Role of Zoos

Today, I would like to reconsider the existence of zoos, which we often take for granted.

I research biodiversity from an economic perspective, and I believe this is an excellent opportunity to think about the mechanisms and issues of zoos as the primary place where people first become familiar with biodiversity. Thank you for joining us.

First, I would like to ask Mr. Murata, the director of Zoorasia in Yokohama, to explain the roles of a zoo.

Keio University might not seem to have much of a connection with animals, but before the war, there was the Keio University Junior College of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry. Furthermore, the most significant connection to zoos is Yukichi Fukuzawa.

Fukuzawa went to Europe as a member of the mission to Europe at the end of the Edo period. With a broad perspective, he observed many different things, and it seems he also saw a zoo within a complex of museums in Paris. When he introduced it in "Things Western (Seiyō Jijō)," he used the kanji for "Dobutsuen" (zoo) to describe a facility that "keeps birds, beasts, fish, and insects while they are alive."

Since that is said to be the first instance of the word "Dobutsuen" being used in Japan, one could even say that the "zoo" was born at Keio University (laughs).

Later, a man named Yoshio Tanaka traveled to Paris as an exhibition coordinator for the World Expo at the end of the Edo period. He was deeply moved by the zoo in the museum complex that Fukuzawa had also seen, and he felt that if Japan did not bring in such social education facilities of European culture, it might lose to the Western powers. Thus, the start of zoos included social education in that way.

It is said that zoos have four roles. One is related to the economy: "recreation." The others are "social education," "conservation and protection" of animals, and "research and investigation." Originally, zoos were based on proper academic education and research in zoology. Recreation, where citizens can relax, exists on that foundation.

When Toshimichi Okubo submitted a proposal to Emperor Meiji to establish a zoo in Japan, he also wrote that a zoo is a place where people can acquire knowledge without even realizing it while having fun.

Therefore, the starting point actually grasped the basics of a zoo more firmly. I believe we should return to that once again.

In present-day Japan, which of those four is given the most emphasis?

Right now, it is recreation—the economy, which is your specialty, Mr. Onuma (laughs).

So, attracting customers.

Most zoo facilities are public and managed by local governments. When asked why a local government owns a zoo and how far they should go with tax money, the idea that they must pay for themselves through admission fees keeps coming up. As a result, many zoos in small local governments end up being able to fulfill only one of these four roles.

If they are not economically viable, they go under. There are private zoos as well as public ones, and several have closed down so far. I think there are places where the original role of the zoo has been lost sight of.

Also, many of the people at the top of zoos, especially public ones, come to the position knowing almost nothing about zoos.

Do bureaucrats come in?

If it is public, people from the relevant Bureau of Construction, Bureau of Health, or Bureau of Economy come. The general public thinks a zoo director is an animal expert, but it is completely different. You might have a manager answering a phone consultation about animals while looking at a book.

I used to be a veterinarian at the Oji Zoo in Kobe. In the past, when a citizen asked, "Where did the penguins at Oji Zoo come from?" someone apparently answered, "From the back door" (laughs). There is also an anecdote where someone was asked, "What do polar bears eat?" and they replied, "They crunch on penguins."

There are no penguins in the Arctic (laughs).

That was the level it was at.

I see. So, with the current strong movement to focus on attracting customers, are they not putting much effort into social education, research, or species conservation?

No, that is not necessarily the case. Globally, species conservation and protection have become central, and animal welfare is becoming a very important pillar.

Of course, it is natural that a zoo cannot survive unless customers come, and it is recognized worldwide that a zoo must have a proper management body as a business or a facility for attracting visitors. However, that sense of balance is extremely important.

Ms. Hasegawa, you have been researching the ecology of wild animals. What is your impression of zoos?

As a researcher, I focused on wild animals, but studying wild animals requires going to Africa or Sri Lanka, which takes time and is difficult to do unless you are young. After getting older and busier, there were quite a few times when I supervised students doing research on zoo animals.

In that sense, although it was indirect, I was involved in ethology targeting zoo animals, but I felt that I wanted the zoo side and the management to have more understanding of the research aspect.

In Japan, there are almost no zoo curators who hold a Ph.D. themselves, right? There are almost no people employed by zoos as researchers.

There are none.

Even if they want to get involved in our research, they are not allowed to do so unless they take paid leave. A system where people on the zoo side are properly involved in research has not been established.

That is right. I mentioned "research" as one of the four pillars earlier, but there are not many zoos that recognize research as a main activity. Public zoos, in particular, have specific job divisions, and there is no category for research as a technical position.

When I was at Oji Zoo, the director at the time told me, "If you want to do research, go to a university."

So it is different from museums and art galleries, which serve as places for curators to conduct research.

However, in terms of their positioning within the Museum Act, zoos are facilities equivalent to museums. Despite that, the actual situation is a bit different.

Is it because, unlike works of art, taking care of animals is so busy?

Basically, they must be busy. They are trying to operate with minimal staff by cutting personnel.

Historically, the positioning of research was never there to begin with.

After all, in the past, the people who raised the animals were considered craftsmen in the zoo.

There are animals in zoos that are difficult to observe in the wild, so I think things would change significantly if zoos were designed with an eye toward how to conduct research.

Exactly. It is a waste.

Ms. Togawa, you have been involved in wildlife conservation activities. From that standpoint, how do you view zoos?

We operate under the name Tiger and Elephant Conservation Fund, and our activity is not about looking at individual tigers or elephants, but about protecting the habitats where animals can live.

In Japan, people go to the zoo when they have small children, but as they become adults, they gradually stop going. Also, children interested in animals tend to drift away from zoos around junior high school age as they develop interests in other things. However, I believe the experience of touching animals when young remains even after becoming an adult.

For the past five years, in collaboration with Ueno Zoo, we have been reaching out to nearby elementary schools to gather students for activities under the name "Ueno Tiger Ambassadors." The elementary school students who convey information about tigers learn about the animals by actually seeing what their fangs and skeletons are like and how large their paws are at the zoo. Then, through a game we devised called "Let's Try Being a Tiger," they learn about tiger society—that even within the single category of "tiger," there are various types in the wild, such as resident individuals, wandering individuals, and females raising cubs. It is a workshop where they spend three years studying the ecosystems of tiger habitats, the friction between people living in the forest and tigers, and solutions for coexistence.

So you view the zoo as a place for education.

Yes, with the revision of the Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the role of zoos is expected to become clearer. Since wild animals are truly becoming scarce, the role is to breed and raise them with the premise of eventually returning them to their original wild environment. However, since it is realistically very difficult for a zoo to return mammals to the wild, I think it is important to make the zoo a place to convey and think about that difficulty and the current state of their original habitats.

As Ms. Togawa just said, I think the impressions received as a child are never forgotten. I believe that is the first step for a zoo in its most correct form as social education.

There are various animals besides humans, and when you go to a zoo, you can come into contact with them. These animals actually live in India or Africa. You can feel all of that by going to a zoo.

For a child who has felt that, when they later think about environmental issues or the importance of life, if their experience at the zoo is at the foundation, I think their way of thinking will be different. In that sense, if we can get people to go to the zoo, we don't have to preach "education" from a high horse; if there is a cute animal in front of them, they will feel it is "cute." That feeling of "cute" leads to a form of nature conservation—questioning whether it is okay for that animal to go extinct—so first, I want zoos to broaden their gateway and become places where many people can visit.

Nowadays, zoos are working hard to change from the old style of having one animal in a small, dark cage to ecological exhibits and trying to show the background. However, overall, there is no basic philosophy in Japan on what a zoo should be, so each zoo and each keeper is trying their best within a small budget through various individual efforts on the ground.

So it depends on individual efforts.

Ideally, local governments should understand the role of zoos from the ground up. However, they still only think of them as facilities for attracting customers.

Ueno Zoo is about the only one that tries to operate with a clearly stated policy on the role of a zoo. For other zoos to say such things is mostly an afterthought to avoid criticism. Everyone is groping in the dark. And when those staff members are transferred, it all disappears.

For example, elephants are animals with a very high ability to recognize people, so a one-on-one relationship with a keeper needs to be built like a marriage, yet they still get transferred. That's why I feel that the existence of a zoo rests on a very fragile foundation.

In Japan, I think ecological exhibits have spread quite a bit since the success of Asahiyama Zoo. What are the effects of that?

In the case of Asahiyama, they call it behavioral display rather than ecological display. Until then, there were many zoos where animals just slept without moving, but they created mechanisms in the exhibition facilities to let people see them moving.

Ecological display came from a different lineage; it means mimicking the nature where animals live as a captive environment, placing the animals there, and encouraging natural behavior. Both have the same goal, but since ecological displays are very expensive, Asahiyama's method became widespread and drew attention.

I see. In the past, zoos were almost all the same—you looked down at the behavior from a high place, and if you went around the back, there was a sleeping quarters—but now they are truly different depending on the zoo.

Allowing animals to move has benefits for both the animals and the visitors.

Disney built a large zoo called Animal Kingdom in Florida. Because Disney was building a zoo, conservation groups in the US staged a major protest. To respond to that, Disney said they would allow it to open by including a mountain of educational elements in the attractions and everything else.

For example, in the African savanna zone, they made it so you can go around in a jeep, and as an attraction, a radio call suddenly comes into the jeep and you go racing off to catch poachers. In the Asian zone, there's an attraction where the tropical rainforest is burning, a truck transporting timber falls off a cliff, and tigers are running around in between. By including educational elements everywhere, like "Look at the terrible things happening in the rainforest," they were finally able to open.

I imagine that pursuing the goal of attracting customers inevitably leads to trying to bring in popular or rare animals, but how is the strategy for which animals to exhibit decided?

It differs for each zoo. In Yokohama City, there is an Animal Collection Committee within the Environment Creation Bureau, which oversees zoos, with the Officer at the top, and they create future plans there. However, in any case, we are no longer in an era where we try to attract customers with rare animals.

The direction is shifting toward emphasizing quality over the number of visitors. Recently, there are many visitors whose feelings for animals are even more passionate than those of zoo staff, and they are very knowledgeable. Some people even say, "I am willing to provide all my assets for the welfare of the animals." This was unthinkable about 40 years ago.

Actually, this kind of thing is common overseas; for example, the Zurich Zoo apparently has an estate management section. They have specialists who follow and care for wealthy individuals for about 10 years. When they eventually pass away, billions of yen in inheritance come in. Advanced zoos in Europe and America are sustained by such donations. Therefore, they cannot survive unless they realize the wishes of those people.

So it is a form where the opinions of people with strong feelings are reflected.

That's right. Wanting to see "rare animals" is a story from decades ago; now, the desire to see "this child (individual)" and to "cherish this child" has become stronger. There is very strong affection for individuals, like the polar bears Bariba-chan or Tsuyoshi-chan.

That is where animal welfare becomes extremely important.

Once that kind of emotional attachment develops, people start to wonder if such a poor environment is acceptable.

The role of the zoo changes greatly with the times. Nowadays, the main purpose is to protect animals or, in terms of conservation, to breed them and reintroduce them in the future, and the mainstream idea is that as long as we keep them, we should guarantee the happiness of the animals. That is a human responsibility, and we must recognize the dignity of animals to live.

How are the animals procured?

Nowadays, most animals are those bred in zoos. Capturing them in the wild is becoming quite rare. Instead, they are moved within networks of domestic or international zoos to be preserved in captivity while maintaining genetic diversity.

But when a panda arrives, everyone goes to see it. So, the awareness on the zoo's side and the awareness on the visitors' side still don't quite match up, do they?

However, awareness is changing significantly. It might be a bit of a problem that top-level people in zoos still hold the mindsets of visitors from the old days.

Currently, how much in donations do Japanese zoos receive?

There are donations, but in the case of public interest incorporated foundations, there are systems that prevent them from obtaining huge sums of money. It is also difficult to have a system for accepting donations at public zoos, as they often end up as Miscellaneous for the entire city.

So they become part of the general revenue.

It would be fine if the funds trickled down to the zoo from there. At the Kyoto City Zoo, there was an instance where a woman made a large donation, which was used to cover the construction costs of the gorilla house.

Recently, for example, showing animals at night has started to be done.

It is done during the summer, but there is the issue of animal stress.

What are called animal welfare, enrichment, or behavioral exhibits are mostly done during the hours when visitors are present. Naturally, behavioral exhibits are also conducted while visitors are watching.

However, 16 hours of an animal's day are spent in their sleeping quarters. Yet, enrichment and welfare during those hours haven't been considered much. There is a point of reflection that while we talk about animal welfare, we haven't truly been doing it for the sake of the animals.

Most mammals are nocturnal, aren't they? The ones that are mostly diurnal are primates—monkeys. Since humans are primates, we are a minority among mammals that move during the day, yet we try to show 95% of mammals during the day to suit ourselves (laughs).

One thing I think about zoos is the practice of keeping social animals individually. I think that is a very pitiful thing for them. There are many situations where animals that naturally live with companions can only be kept alone for various reasons, such as cost.

But it's difficult to reproduce sociality in a zoo. It requires a fairly vast area.

There's also compatibility; it's difficult, isn't it?

Even if we pair them up based on human judgment, they might end up fighting.

Also, being watched by people like that must be stressful, right? So, for visitors who get angry saying "I can't see them, I can't see them," we should calm them down, and having a structure where they can only catch a glimpse might be better for both parties. Even in terms of humans learning about animals.

But recently, we also receive complaints from visitors that there are no hiding places. Since people are starting to notice those things, zoos should respond.

I think it's about protecting the dignity of animals. Protecting the rights of living things, and guaranteeing their way of life and happiness. Only after that should we introduce interaction between animals and humans. If we think anthropocentrically, I don't think zoos will last in the future.

Zoos are often called a door to nature, but the question is whether they can truly fulfill that role.

It would be great if people emerged saying, "I went to the zoo, so next I want to go to the African savanna."

Zoos in the West have relatively high admission fees. Even in Japan, places like Adventure World in Shirahama are expensive, costing around 4,000 yen. By making it expensive, only true animal lovers come.

I think setting the price high and having a small number of people support it is one way to go.

But I think the role of a public zoo is to keep the threshold low and have as many people as possible see them.

That is being debated. However, the difficulty is that since they are facilities equivalent to museums, high admission fees cannot be requested.

Ah, I see.

Because many public zoos adopted that mindset at their start, they have that history, so it's difficult to change it immediately.

In that case, is the method of attracting more people with low admission fees better?

It's quite difficult, isn't it? Whether to make it free and fulfill the role of social education, or to charge high admission fees and improve quality.

How about taking massive donations from the wealthy and making it free? (laughs).

But if you make it free, the quality might drop.

Nogeyama is free. All Yokohama citizens have experience with Nogeyama. They go there in kindergarten and elementary school. It's a place that's easy to visit even as an adult; you can just drop by.

It's good as an entry point, but there are concerns for the future, aren't there?

No, there are concerns in everything (laughs). For example, the Kanazawa Zoo in Yokohama brought in many very rare herbivores, but because they brought in such rare animals, there are no successors after they die. They are too rare to bring in from overseas anymore, and they couldn't breed them. In the end, it just becomes empty.

In terms of research, isn't it important to be able to observe animals up close that you wouldn't normally encounter in your everyday fields? If a zoo is to become a research facility, collecting such rare animals could also be a subject of research.

As long as we keep animals, research is necessary to make 100% use of them, and I think they should be social education facilities that nurture children.

There's no point in keeping rare animals in a state where there are no researchers, no receptacle for research, and no records of that research are kept.

That's right. We should make them facilities that cultivate sensitivity when young, and as they grow up, they value interaction with nature and protect the natural environment. For that, support is necessary, so both sufficient research and education are needed.

What I want to ask in relation to animal welfare is the display of birds. There are cases where you think a bird is outside the cage, but its wings have been clipped. How are bird exhibits designed?

Actually, it's becoming a big issue in Europe and America. In the past, they used "pinioning," which involves removing part of one wing so they can't fly, or "wing clipping," which involves cutting feathers so they can't fly.

Nowadays, for welfare reasons, pinioning is naturally prohibited. There is also debate about whether wing clipping is okay, as it causes birds to lose their balance during breeding, preventing successful mating and lowering the reproduction rate. There is a possibility that keeping many birds in open spaces will disappear in the future.

There's that zoo in Singapore where birds are flying all over the place, right? Do places like that have no cages at all?

They intentionally let them fly freely. In Malaysian zoos, they fly far away and then come back. In Southeast Asia, it's completely free-range. In Japan, we can't do that because of the Invasive Alien Species Act.

When I went to Australia and entered the campus of the Australian National University in Canberra, parrots were flying everywhere. King parrots, parakeets, red and green ones were flying all over, and I wondered what on earth was going on, only to realize that this was their natural habitat (laughs).

There are lots of sparrows inside the aviaries at Zoorasia, aren't there?

Yes, there are. If you leave the food in the pheasant house alone, it mostly becomes food for wild birds.

What kind of things are being done for animal interaction?

We do interactions using guinea pigs and mice. Also, feeding experiences.

Interactions are popular, aren't they?

They are popular, but when asked if that's truly a good thing, it's a difficult point. Experiences when young are important, but they can be a source of severe stress for the animals.

There are things like trying to touch a seal's nose, or shaking hands with an otter. A child gives a little poke where the animal sticks its face out of a small tube-like thing. That's very popular, isn't it?

It is popular.

I find that scary, including the risk of infection.

When I went to a zoo in Hamburg, they had children kneel and line up in a row, and then they had a small red panda or something run across their backs. The children were overjoyed, but that would probably be impossible in Japan.

Interactions are difficult now. Being able to see them up close is fine, but there's debate about whether actually touching them is okay.

Also, though it's not talked about much in Japan, the biggest issue is euthanasia. Overseas, elderly or sick animals are euthanized in zoos to prevent them from suffering. In Japan, this hasn't been publicly debated yet.

Japanese people have a mentality of wanting to take care of something until it dies, even if it gets sick. In Japan, whether it's an insect or a bird, everything is a life. But the West is a bit different. In a sense, they can be objects, and they think nothing of killing them.

So there are such differences in views on animals.

Since views on animals and culture form the foundation of zoos, if Japanese culture changes in the future, zoos will likely change as well.

How we interact with animals will be questioned. For example, while calling for the protection of tigers and elephants overseas, in Japan, if a bear comes down to a human settlement and someone gets injured, we say let's kill it. If they come into town, they are pests; if they are shown on TV, they become cute animals—there are no rules for how to deal with wild animals. There's nowhere where we have a habit of thinking about it regularly.

There's no government agency in charge either, right? We've coexisted with animals for thousands of years in the Japanese archipelago, but we don't know how many wild boars it's okay to catch or how many bears there should be. When the number of deer increases rapidly, we frantically say to increase hunters or release wolves—it's a mess. In the midst of that, zoos are currently the only organizations that think about animals. So, if you inquire and they say, "The penguin came in through the back door," that's a problem (laughs).

As Hisa-san mentioned, zoos do not just keep animals; they are very closely linked to cultural backgrounds.

Therefore, I hope that Keio University, founded by Yukichi Fukuzawa, who is said to have coined the Japanese word for "zoo," will establish a department or course related to zoos. There is no bright future for zoos unless we organically connect the academic fields of Japanese economics, society, and politics that support the background of zoos. We are no longer in an era where we simply show animals and take money.

I believe that conflicts between wildlife and humans will increasingly occur in rural areas due to population decline. Zoos must also take on the role of institutions that accumulate the know-how to deal with these issues.

In that sense, zoos are extremely valuable facilities. I want to build "Zoo Studies" as an academic system within the organic links of the economy and society surrounding animals, rather than just simple zoology, and create zoos that are supported by that system.

The tigers at Ueno Zoo are Sumatran tigers, but on Sumatra, most of the tropical rainforest is being cleared for palm oil, and the tigers' habitats are rapidly disappearing, leading to a decrease in their numbers. Therefore, in the "Tiger Ambassador" workshops, we explain the current situation and then have children role-play as plantation owners, workers, people whose livestock were killed by tigers, or rangers. Finally, they create a picture story show (kamishibai) using their own words.

Children who initially answered "the zoo" when asked "Where do tigers live?" learn various things over three years and eventually start thinking about what they can do regarding the critical situation in the habitats. I think the power of children is significant.

Do zoos currently provide information about the status of habitats or poaching? Is there a direction toward creating an integrated image of society and nature?

For example, the "Congo Gorilla Forest" exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in the US and exhibits mimicking the nature of Madagascar in European zoos are large-scale displays that put the connection with development at the forefront.

In Japan, both Ueno Zoo and Zoorasia always have such explanatory panels in front of animal exhibits. It has become common sense to convey why that animal must be kept in a zoo and what kind of situation the animal faces in the wild.

When you go to the actual sites, it really comes down to economic issues. Palm oil became a hit because it was marketed as environmentally friendly. But on the ground, they are burning down entire tropical rainforests to create oil palm plantations.

However, the local people feel, "We want electricity, schools, and hospitals too. What's wrong with aiming for a prosperous life?" From a macro perspective, it's clearly bad because of environmental destruction. But in the context of an individual's life, wanting to be prosperous is not a bad thing at all. Such situations are everywhere.

Elephant poaching is a hot topic now, but in Africa, there are various types of poaching. There is poaching by poor people for food, called "bushmeat," where they catch animals like gazelles, and then there is poaching by those who want to make a lot of money from ivory or rhino horns.

On the other hand, rangers don't protect elephants just because they are cute; they fight with guns at the risk of their lives for the national economy because if elephants disappear, tourism resources will be lost. Therefore, we cannot protect animals unless we translate everything into economic terms in various places.

No matter how hard we try to breed animals in zoos, if the places to return them to are destroyed, there is nowhere for them to go. The reason those places disappear is mostly due to so-called global economic activities.

People need to go to the zoo and, from there, develop an interest in the mechanisms of the world, society, and the economy.

I hope we can change the world from the zoo.

In that sense, this "Tiger Ambassador" is a great idea. I think it's wonderful for each person to be an ambassador for animals.

We often see animals characterized in novels, manga, or anime, and we have certain preconceptions about animals, don't we?

Like saying "Oh, how cute!" at something like Bambi. For example, I dislike stories for children where "the wolf and the goat became friends" (laughs).

People who go to the savanna for the first time are first surprised by the abundance of animals and ask things like, "Who feeds them?" (laughs). Everyone lives self-sufficiently, but when people see the reality, they are shocked. A lion catches a warthog, pins down its belly, and eats it crunchily from the morning. A fetus comes out of that belly, and you can hear the sound of the lion putting it in its mouth and crunching it.

In a hunting scene, in a sense, people empathize with the gazelle, the herbivore. However, if the lion fails to hunt many times, they gradually start to empathize with the hunter and feel relieved, saying, "Oh, it finally caught one." So, empathy can go either way.

That is basically because people have little experience facing animals directly. In that sense, I want zoos to be places that make everyone think about the encounter between animals and humans.

Regarding how to interact with wildlife, tourists feed the Ezo red foxes in Shiretoko, so the foxes have started approaching cars when they see them. While you can see animals up close in a zoo, it is necessary to maintain a certain distance from wild animals; otherwise, coexistence is difficult. We call it "warm ignoring," and I hope the meaning of warmly ignoring them reaches children.

I see. Hasegawa-san, what kind of relationship do you maintain when you are in contact with animals in the field?

Neither too close nor too far. It's a distance where you observe with binoculars. When I was studying chimpanzees in Africa, the professors from Kyoto University used to feed them bananas, so those who were well-accustomed would come as close as 3 meters, but that was rare; mostly, I had to observe them from more than 10 meters away with binoculars.

The scariest thing when I was in Africa was a leopard following a group of chimpanzees. We were watching from the ground, and the chimpanzees quickly climbed trees and were angry, throwing branches at the leopard from above. But we couldn't climb trees, so the leopard was right behind us. I've never been so scared.

Also, at night, a lion once came to eat a wild chimpanzee. A few weeks later, one baby chimpanzee was gone, and in a large pile of lion dung, there were chimpanzee hairs and a skull. I realized, "Ah, this one was eaten."

In the two years I was there, a lion came to the forest only once. I truly felt how terrifying it is to have no fence between us and carnivores.

In zoos, is there no stress between different species?

In the new African Savanna exhibit at Zoorasia, we have a mixed-species display of four types: giraffes, zebras, elands, and the carnivore, the cheetah.

At first, there was something like stress, but as we continued, we saw behaviors like greeting each other or testing each other's feelings between species, which is very interesting.

That is interesting.

They might be hesitant or actively approach each other. The cheetah is in the weakest position and cannot attack anything larger than itself. Occasionally it teases a zebra, but if the zebra gets serious, the cheetah would likely be seriously injured. Now, it has become an atmosphere where they seem to enjoy that kind of chasing.

As mentioned earlier, keeping species individually in cages without social context is quite pitiful. It's about time we change our human-centric thinking. If we don't see ourselves (humans) as one species of animal living within the environment, our future is also in danger. I want to make zoos a place where people can learn such things.

For example, if you wanted to create an ideal zoo, Murata-san, how would you go about it?

It's the philosophy from when people first tried to create zoos in Japan. Academic and scholarly foundations come first, followed by education and outreach. High-quality recreation cannot exist without that support. I want to aim for a zoo that properly exists within society, economy, and politics, in what could be called Zoo Studies.

I would like to ask the rest of you one by one about your desires: if you were to create a zoo, what kind of zoo would it be?

A zoo that serves as a place for children's education, where they can learn about society from animals. A place where they can learn and think about the reality that human society, tiger society, monkey society, etc., each exist, and that conflicts with humans are occurring.

It might be impossible forever, but I wonder if we could create a place where animals are there by their own will, and can even open and close doors by their own will. Maybe a zoologist shouldn't say such things (laughs).

And we would be the ones waiting for them. That's nice. How about you, Hisa-san?

On a map of Japan, it says "these animals are distributed in Japan." There are deer, bears, and raccoon dogs. However, children living in the city have no chance to meet animals just by going on a short hike. So, I think the role of the zoo is very large.

There are various animals all over the world, and humans have lived together with them for thousands or tens of thousands of years, but if tigers and elephants stop leaving descendants, we will never see them again. The chance to realize that gravity is by meeting animals at the zoo, and I think it's about properly understanding the position of animals through the keepers or at a place like a visitor center.

Some people say it's fine because we can leave video records, but animals in videos don't die and don't have babies. But in a zoo, you can see the cycle of life. The role of the zoo includes that.

The fact that local governments run them means there is an awareness that citizens are collectively keeping those animals. When an animal dies and everyone brings bouquets, it's because citizens can feel, "I am living together with this animal now."

If the administration itself understands the role of the zoo more and good citizens are raised there, the administration becomes the beneficiary. If children who are kind to the environment and value life become adults, they won't litter, they won't bully, and good citizens will be raised. I want it to be that kind of zoo, not just for entertainment or attracting customers.

Director Murata, there are many graduates of Keio University in the business world. Is there anything in particular you would like them to keep in mind?

The power of the economy is very strong, so how do we link the economy and the zoo? I want to think about creating such mechanisms together with companies and others.

For example, we could consider having each company sponsor an exhibit, or it could be in terms of support, but I hope to create a system where coming to the zoo allows one to see the direction of that company and its role in society.

Ideally, I think if society as a whole became like a zoo, zoos would no longer be necessary (laughs). For me, I would be happy if I were in the mountains and could see wild animals. I want to make the zoo a place that makes people feel a society where we can live not as human-centrists, but as one species of animal within the same ecosystem.

This is my personal impression, but when I ask students, they say they go to aquariums rather than zoos for dates. My ideal is a zoo where a couple who has just started dating can say, "Well, shall we go to the zoo?" (laughs).

But according to surveys, the success rate is higher when you invite someone to the zoo than to a restaurant or a movie theater in town.

I didn't know that. Is it because they empathize by looking at the same animals?

Zoos have a certain sense of security, don't they? There's also the image of having gone there when you were little.

It would be nice to have a zoo where, during a date, you feel like helping with habitat conservation while looking at the animals—where you can find such hints. A place where the future can be discussed brightly.

I see. Then I'll tell my students, "It seems like a first date goes well if you go to the zoo" (laughs).

Well, in that case, it's Zoorasia (laughs).

The conversation could go on forever, but thank you very much for today.

*Affiliations and titles are as of the time this magazine was published.