THE NEXT REVOLUTION

Lyn de Alwis

Mr Bernard Harrison, President of SEAZA, Dr Kwa Soon Bee, Chairman of Singapore Zoological Gardens and Jurong BirdPark, co-hosts of this Conference, Members of the Executive Board of SEAZA, Distinguished Invitees, Friends.

If you detect a puzzled look on my face, it is because I am still trying to answer the question "How did I come to be making this Keynote Address?" I asked Bernard whether he had in fact made a mistake in inviting me in the first place. He smiled his disarming smile and merely said "You are our `guru’". True, my hair is totally grey and I am getting on in years - yesterday I added another year to my score - but I still lack the long curly locks and flowing beard that qualify one for that mystic position of an omnipotent! What I do know is that I am privileged to be invited, and greatly honoured and happy to stand here and speak to long-time colleagues and friends.

The title I have given my address is "The Next Revolution" and that should puzzle you, I am sure. You might wonder whether I am going to make a political speech about revolutions created by George Soros or Jiang Zhe Min. No I am not. Actually I chose this rather cryptic title, because, in a way, I see in their respective histories that both Zoos and human societies became "modern" through big changes approaching revolutions in their magnitude. I also thought I should give another interpretation to the theme "Modernising Zoos in Modernising Societies".

For example the changes in primitive Man from hunter-gatherer to settled farmer were revolutionary as were the changes from menagerie to naturalistic enclosures.

Firstly, let us see how human societies evolved from the earliest hunters, be they Homo erectus or Homo sapiens, to become the "modern" man of today.

The story of civilization and the evolution of human society and culture is a story of man’s understanding of Nature and his place in it in relation to other animals and to plants.

Let us examine a few of the changes in a little more detail and since I am speaking to a predominantly South East Asian audience I will try to re-enact what would have taken place in a South East Asian setting.

According to the fossil record primitive Man, Homo erectus, had arrived in Java about a million years ago. This was at a time when these geologically unstable landmasses were subject to changes in sea level. Land bridges had formed when levels were low and the climate was cool and the vegetation was mostly savannah grassland. These were ideal conditions for humans to move over large areas and hunt the numerous species of herbivores which formed their principal prey. They had a choice of banteng, gaur and elephant or the succulent flesh of Eld’s deer and sambar which were also easy to hunt with primitive weapons.

Even in that dim distant past, Man learnt the habits of animals and studied their food plants and their movement patterns. These were pre-requisites for developing skills in hunting. But as populations began to increase and rising sea levels flooded the plains, they knew they had to change their strategy to suit the limited land area. The first major breakthrough came when Man used fire to manipulate the savanna. By interrupting the cycle of natural fires and setting fire to only parts of the plains, he encouraged new shoots to emerge, off-season. The new growth pre-empted animal migration and ensured that game would stay on the plain until the rains came. The use of fire to manipulate his environment was the first revolution.

The second was not far behind. As Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens with a larger and more superior brain, he learnt to domesticate the plants he used to gather. He would collect seeds and tubers and store them for planting when conditions were suitable. And this he did by cutting down the forest, letting it dry and then setting fire to it. This new method which survives until the present day is known as "slash and burn" or as shifting cultivation, because people moved to new pastures when soils became infertile. "Slash and burn" enabled Man to move into the uplands as well, and encouraged a more settled and secure life style. There, on the soils enriched by the ash from burnt vegetation, he planted seeds and tubers of an amazing variety of crops. Thus began the second or Agricultural Revolution which provided ample food for increasing populations.

The anthropologist Wilhelm Solheim claims that "some of the technologically advanced cultures in the world in the period from 13,000 BC to 4,000 BC flourished not in the Middle East or the adjacent Mediterranean, but in the northern reaches of mainland Southeast Asia". It is said that about 10,000 years ago people had a "varied menu that included several varieties of beans, cucumbers, water chestnut, almond, peppers and bottle gourd which were served with numerous kinds of meat - turtles, fish, bats, rats, squirrels, deer, pigs and monkeys.

But it wasn’t all plain sailing. It was driven home that sole dependence on nature, despite entreating and appeasing a multitude of gods and spirits, resulted in near famine if the drought was prolonged or the rains failed.

They knew the answer lay in storing rainwater in large reservoirs and releasing it to the parched fields, particularly the rice fields, for by now water tolerant varieties had been discovered. The kings and religious leaders pressurized their engineers to use what technology was available to achieve this objective. The first attempts were made in India where earth dams impounded run-off from hill slopes. But it was in Sri Lanka that the technology blossomed into mighty irrigation works. Engineers succeeded in constructing not just one reservoir but a series of them where the overflow from one fed the next, lower down. They perfected irrigation channels in such a way that water in them would flow over the slightest gradient. For example in Sri Lanka in the ancient capital of Anuradhapura during the 2nd Century AD, irrigation reached some dizzy heights. In one case water from one reservoir was conveyed a distance of 50 miles over a gradient of just six inches, feeding several reservoirs on the way and irrigating thousands of acres of paddy lands. Sri Lanka became the "granary of the East". The achievement soon spread eastwards to Myanmar, Thailand and notably, Cambodia.

The technology which produced these irrigation works marks the third revolution, the hydraulic revolution, which brought south and southeast Asia to the height of prosperity and power, 2,000 years ago. Actually, "while Europe was still in the Dark Ages, great cities and sophisticated empires flourished in the rich, rice-growing river valleys of Indochina, Thailand, Burma, Sumatra and Java" and if I may add to that list compiled by Mc Neely and Wachtel, India and Sri Lanka.

At that time people were already practising sustainable development and conserving their natural resources and bio-diversity long before these concepts became fashionable in 20th century Europe.

Unfortunately the next revolution brought disastrous results. This was the spread of the international market place. Where earlier people produced food only for local consumption, the competitive markets enticed them to grow things that could be sold abroad, if they were to buy the products of Western industry. The demands placed on the land and the people to yield more marketable produce only resulted in their distancing themselves from the sustainable development they were practising and in ruthlessly ravaging the environment. This entry into the international marketplace has brought us to the fourth revolution where modernisation is achieved by means of turning one’s back on Nature. Modern man who has the opportunity for better education and material supremacy, feels he does not need to know that he is still dependent on forests and cultivation as long as he gets what he wants in the supermarket. Those anecdotes about children when asked where eggs come from, reply "the supermarket" are really true.

The biggest irony is that the West, having exhausted their paltry natural resources now have the economic power to invade many Tropical countries notably Asia and Africa for new raw materials to boost their health and wealth.

So how do we judge modernisation? Are we to get further and further away from Nature and into the quagmire of global warming, depletion of the ozone layer or should we look back to the future? Should we practise self-sufficiency, go back to cultural strictures of the past where the local people had the responsibility and ability to prevent over exploitation at the community level. Should we not practise the spiritualism on which our ancestors set great store in our quest for development and should we not use our learning and our intellect to persuade politicians to return to the people the land they once owned and farmed for the greater common good.

I must not sound like a fanatic, for "a fanatic" said Churchill "is a man who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject". So I will quickly summarize what I have so far said. The basis of human evolution and the attainment of prosperity and power for people was Man’s understanding of and respect for Nature and animals and plants in particular. Until pre-colonial times, ancient peoples of what today are collectively referred to as third world people, could be considered as having been "modern" in an economic and cultural sense. "Most of the world’s great religions flourished in Asia, supported by sophisticated literature, art and philosophy.....people and animals have lived in reasonable balance and it is likely that the productive balance will work again in the future.

Should ASEAN Zoos of the future fit into this kind of scenario? Or should we merely follow the changes taking place in Zoos in technologically advanced countries and go "electronic" in order to attract people immersed in the computer world.

Before we answer that, let us look at some of the revolutions that took place in zoos, to bring them to their present state of excellence. It is not my intention to bore you with a discourse on the history of Zoos for that would be an insult to you as good zoo men and women. What I want to show is that it was the relationship between animals and man that started zoos as well, and that is the relationship that we as zoo and conservation men must cherish and nurture and never lose sight of.

Archaeologists tell us that the first manifestation of physical contact between animals and man began during the Old Stone Age. They reconstruct a scene where during a hunt, a child picks up an abandoned pup of a wolf, through curiosity and brings it back to his cave dwelling. Soon, curiosity combines with amusement as the pup, full of energy as it is, begins playing with children. It had been so even with baby elephants, apparently. The adults in the family also get drawn into this new entertainment and so a bond between them develops.

This emotional attachment persists to this day. It is children who bring parents or adults to the Zoo, because these adults tend to drift away from animals especially when they pursue the benefits of the material world. Adults don’t generally manifest love for animals, but of course, it still stirs within them, and must be prised out if we are to make them aware of that fact in understanding why it is important to stay close to Nature if we ourselves are to survive. So the first purpose for which animals were kept was entertainment which even today is a basic function of a Zoo.

But in the great civilizations of India, China and Egypt, the keeping of animals became status symbols and through this kings, nobles and potentates amassed vast collections. In China we see the first signs of animals being kept for educational purposes as Emperors created Gardens of Intelligence. And in Egypt the exchange of animals was a sign of good relations between countries. A number of these kings had a genuine desire to establish a rapport with animals and to learn about them and appreciate them. One well-known example was King Solomon who apparently personally knew every single of his 5,000 animals by sight. This inspired the poet, Rudyard Kipling, to compose this little poem:

"There was never a king like Solomon

Not since the world began

For Solomon could talk to a butterfly

As a man would talk to a man"

Even though some of these collections were kept in Parks and animals enjoyed a certain amount of daily exercise, they were basically menageries. But of course there were isolated cases in Roman times where intellectuals saw that zoos could be places of learning also. One of the first of these was Marcus Terrentius Varro who lived from 116 BC to 27 BC who was both a scholar and a Zoologist. He specialized in birds both to admire them and to eat them! About the same time there was Lucullus who also liked birds for the same purposes. He incidentally designed the first walk-through Aviary, 2,000 years ago. And in it he sat at a great dining table as birds flew around him and his guests. Any bird that caught Lucullus’ fancy or that of his guests, ended up on that dinner table! James Fisher in his book "Zoos of the World" gives much credit to Varro and Lucullus who had forward-looking ideas, one of which was to have an "open zoo" possibly one which foreshadowed Hagenbeck.

The first major change of a revolutionary nature came with the opening of these zoos to the public. Actually there had been pressure from Society which by this time was getting more affluent and mobile and demanding places of recreation. Zoo managers then saw there was money to be earned and opened their gates for a fee. What the public saw was not to their liking and since they were paying to see the animals, they demanded better conditions for them. We see here the beginning of public opposition to Zoos and their being branded as animal prisons, when they first saw animals behind iron bars and on concrete floors.

Their protests did have some positive results. It reminded zoo managers and animal keepers of their responsibility to show tender loving care towards their "keep". Fortunately by this time Veterinary science was gaining ground and was being applied to proper husbandry of animals. This quickly spread to Zoos and contributed in no small measure to improving zoo standards and quality. An area which benefited zoo animals directly was the introduction of better feeding and disease prevention which in turn resulted in breeding successes. Coinciding with these advances was the role Zoos played in educating, first their own staff and later, members of the public.

It was during this period that Carl Hagenbeck launched what was the third revolution in 1907. Again I don’t want to labour all you knowledgeable people with its details, but I shall mention its philosophy, in passing. What Hagenbeck achieved through his revolutionary idea of bringing down bars, walls and other offending physical barriers was the creation of the illusion of freedom for the animals which satisfied the ego of the public. The use of moats whether dry, wet, u-shaped or sloping was a play on the psychology of the animals. Besides giving visitors an unobstructed view of the animals, the new enclosures encouraged the creation of naturalistic displays. These in turn, threw zoo animals in a better light and helped in their appreciation.

Whether psychological barriers are more stressful to the animal than physical ones is a question only the animal can answer. If we take a count of the number of animals that drown in a wet moat, or fracture limbs or die of shock in dry ones, we might find some surprising answers.

Be that as it may it was a beautiful dream that Carl Hagenbeck dreamt: that he should "liberate" animals from the menagerie as some sort of compensation for the thousands of wonderful animals that died at his hand when capturing them for and transporting them to Zoos.

Besides freeing animals from their prisons, the new style of naturalistic displays attracted other skills and technologies which enabled Zoo directors to give animals the best deal. Horticulture is being increasingly adapted to suit animal needs, landscape architects are creating masterpieces of near-natural habitats. The opportunity to display animals in groups elicits natural behaviour, increases breeding and thereby contributes to conservation and everybody appears quite happy.

During the 20th Century, Zoo directors, veterinarians and technicians have improved on the original. Where earlier different species appeared in one view, they were separated by barriers invisible to the public. Now Zoos display more than one species in the same enclosure after studies have revealed their compatibility.

Occupational therapy is being increasingly provided, in order to elicit natural behaviour.

But I would like to caution against zoo managers getting too smug about such achievements. Simply increasing the size of enclosures is not going to make animals any the happier. We must strive to give animals quality environments that make them feel comfortable. For example such erroneous thinking that a cheetah needs ‘n’ number of metres to gather speed must not be the criterion in determining the size of a cheetah enclosure. In captivity, cheetahs don’t need to run and pounce, for dinner is served to them on a "platter". The cheetah is quite happy to sit in one corner of the longest run you may give it. Large size doesn’t impress visitors, they complain that animals are too far away and cannot be seen to be appreciated.

Similarly let’s consider our contribution to conservation. We seem to be able to breed almost any endangered animal and we run away with the idea that zoos can prevent extinction. This is a dangerous boast because politicians are beginning to take a simplistic view of conservation and merrily alienate land for human use. We may breed the animal, but its reintroduction is a matter entirely in the hands of the wildlife specialists.

I firmly believe that we are on the brink of the next revolution, especially where Asian zoos, particularly South East Asians are concerned. In many countries here we still have a clean slate, so to speak. We have some 50% of the land in forest. But we also have thousands of acres of degraded and denuded land. So here’s our challenge; put to practical use our skills in conservation.

The next revolution must start here in South East Asia. We have a wonderful opportunity to go back to the simple pleasures of a zoo visit, to be close to the animals we like to see. From there lets show that an animal’s place is in the natural habitat. Whatever we may otherwise do, we are showing animals out of context the moment you bring it into captivity. It is like a word in a well-composed sentence. Remove one word and it becomes meaningless and so does the sentence.

You in ASEAN zoos have the best opportunity to launch the next revolution. Speaking from my wildlife background and experience with zoos, the next revolution should be the grand marriage of Zoos and Wildlife Parks. After all even a National Park is an enormous Zoo! Banish the thought of building new Zoos close to urban centres, New and modern Asean zoos should be adjacent to and integrated with wilderness areas so that each enhances the other and together will once again enthrone Nature. I can see the beginning of this in the Hlawga Park outside Yangon, Khao Kheow in Thailand and the proposed Phnom Tamau Zoological Park in Cambodia. Rather than play a negative role in conservation by merely breeding endangered species for release, and contribute indirectly to ex-situ conservation, the better Asean Zoos can help the less fortunate ones more directly by taking the zoo to the natural environment and contribute directly to in situ conservation. This can be done by selecting devastated forests or degraded land as sites for new zoos. The local community can be urged to participate in rehabilitating this forest for their use on a sustainable basis. The Zoo will become a sort of window looking into the forest and into which local animals bred in the zoo can be released under controlled conditions. Indeed there is no better way to educate local people about the priceless animals they have inherited and what they mean to the global conscience about saving animal species.

Zoos in ASEAN can then really say that they have contributed to conservation and given back to the animals their rightful place. If the great Mahatma Gandhi were alive he would stand up and acknowledge that what he said many decades ago was prophetic.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress, can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated"

Thank you.

Lyn de Alwis

Sri Lanka

28 October 1997

SEAZA 13th Annual Conference, 3-6 September 2004 in Hong Kong - see Conference Announcement Section for details

SEAZA Website last updated on 2004/04/13 17:15 .  For comments regarding  the web page, please email Loretta Ho  Home