Freedom at what cost? — a reply to Adam Cruise on Cape Peninsula baboons
In arguing that Cape Town’s baboons deserve freedom rather than captivity, Adam Cruise raises important ethical questions. But his argument overlooks an equally important consideration: What happens when the freedom he defends in baboons is inseparable from chronic suffering, injury, poor health and premature death?
Adam Cruise's argument that Cape Town's baboons deserve freedom over captivity raises important ethical questions, but overlooks the suffering, injury, poor health, and premature death that accompany freedom in human-altered environments. Professor M Justin O’Riain, a baboon researcher at the University of Cape Town, emphasizes that ethical principles must consider biological, ecological, and welfare realities.
He notes that ethical assessments were included in the Action Plan and addresses stakeholder concerns, though disagreement is legitimate. Cruise's position assumes freedom is inherently preferable to captivity, ignoring that wild animals in urban settings face significant risks like vehicle collisions, electrocutions, dog attacks, and gunshot injuries.
O’Riain argues that these conditions negate the value of freedom and that the proposed Urban Wildlife Centre must address the serious welfare harms faced by baboons currently in urban areas. Cruise highlights potential negative welfare consequences of confinement but should also consider the existing harms of their current situation.
Both parties agree that urban development has negatively impacted baboons, and society has a responsibility to address these drivers, but reversing these consequences or waiting for human behavior changes may not help already suffering baboons.
Written by urgent.news from Daily Maverick's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
