Radiolab

A very interesting and amazing show, as usual. The point of a 'good' environment for the gorillas creating more brain growth in them did not following with or compare to any studies on 'good' environment for humans. Are we to not infer this? What does this say about us?

"Cage" has such a negative connotation.

I think there are good enclosures to use in order to protect endangered animals. Similar to humans, i think some animals fare a great deal better than others in the wild, whereas some do not.

It was amazing how the reporter could take science and twist it to his point of view. Statements were made that had no support from evidence. Before the twentieth century mankind only brutalized animals? Where do you get such an idea? There were plenty of people that abused animals, but there were also many people that cared for both wild and domestic animals. One person states primate brains showed 20 to 40% improvement with a better environment. The second says “Forty percent!” No, not forty percent! He said 20 to 40%! That is a big difference!

I remember going to the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, TX in the early 1970's, in which a number of animals were housed on little islands near the river, a very natural looking setting, and zoo visitors would walk around on piers/boardwalks built over the water. To me this remains the most amazing breakthrough in zoos that I saw personally, pre-dating Seattle, perhaps.

It seems a no-brainer to me that an enriched enviroment benefits animals in captivity, but it is fascintating to learn of its evolution. One gripe I have is that when the story talks about looking at the brains of the animals it is said in such sanitzed terms. I assume that in order to learn what they did about the changes in the animal's brains they killed them. I feel that should be stated: We killed these animals and examined their brains. Own it. To me, that is completely unacceptable. Instead of slaughtering animals they could have simply observed them in their environments for a period of time and their behaviors would have told them what they needed to know in terms of whether the animals were benefitting.

They did not necessarily kill the animals to see what is happening with their brains. Most probably they did the same they would do with humans to find out what is going on with their brain, which does not involve autopsy.