Zoos alternative or necessity

Zoos are sometimes seen as necessary, but not a poor alternative to a natural environment. Discuss some of the arguments for and against keeping animals in zoos. Nothing is more barbaric than destroying the peace of someone's livelihood, poaching them and destroying their natural habitats. Humans from a very ancient time had close coordination with animals and other living creatures. They have been using them as pets, for cultivation and moreover, as food in many sorts. Thus, keeping animals in zoos can be considered both negative and positive considering a various perspective of the situations. Regarding the positive sides, climate change, like the wildfires and intensive cold weather, is causing disastrous effects in the lives of animals at an enormous rate. Millions of species are dead and many are in danger, and rescuing those species of endangered animals from such calamitous situations can be done with the help of an artificial ecosystem like the zoo. Moreover, zoos can be the place for researches and considered to be an area where our young generations could enjoy and learn about various rare species. On the contrary, considering the confinement and artificial ecosystem that animals have to adjust within a zoo, it is often discarded by the environmentalist as an unsafe place for animals and birds. Zoos often are just the place where men could see the animals and enjoy while small iron cages are applied to enclose the otherwise free animals and birds. Moreover, the authority often tries to cash out the animals and entertain the visitors which is cruel. Taking a look at the real purpose of the existence of zoo and various benefits that have been delivered to the animal kingdom, along with understanding the negative effects of zoos, it can be stated that zoos can sometimes be seen as required but, it is a rather bad alternative to a natural environment.