Some say we are obligated to keep the ecosystem safe for the wildlife that inhabit it. However, there is much controversy on the execution of this topic because of the inherent selfish motivation behind it. Unless there is an ulterior motive for us to want to help, we would not sacrifice our time to help others, let alone animals. One way we have found to artificially help wildlife prolong their timeline is through captivity that is supervised by humans. Currently, one of the most controversial animals to keep in captivity is the orca due to its large size and ability to kill other animals with ease. Large corporations such as SeaWorld claim their orcas live longer in captivity. This process of captivity seems as though it continues to work because we are either supervising the orcas to ensure they are alive and healthy, or we are paying money to see orcas and the money is funded back to orca perservations. However, it seems as though no one has asked themselves what business they have with protecting orcas in the first place when they do not need saving to begin with.

Places such as zoos and amusement parks are not completely bad because they were created with the consumer in mind. If captivity is executed and maintained properly, there are certain advantages that come with seeing animals in a controlled environment. One of these perks is that it raises awareness of the animals and might drive some people to help animals in the future (Blease par. 9). SeaWorld is an example of this consumerist benefit at work. Many of the previous trainers interviewed in the film Blackfish claimed that they had been inspired to help marine animals because of the ones they saw at the amusement park as a child. On top of this, it is arguable that the people who try and see wildlife in their natural habitat are the ones who end up ruining their animal environments: it is impossible to see animals without disrupting them to accommodate our own needs first. Zoos would prove to be the most useful in seeing wildlife for educational purposes (Frontline Online, par. 2). Seeing animals in person provides a different experience than seeing animals in media so this could spark a person’s need to delve into animal involvement.

The opposing side to this argument is that the treatment of animals in captivity is unethical. It has been scientifically proven that orcas have feelings and possess the ability to exhibit empathy, therefore, confining them to small spaces for the rest of their lives and forcing them to do tricks for money is unimaginably painful for them to endure (Braithwaite par. 4). In addition to confinement, the orcas are subject to punishment that include starvation and bodily mutilation if they do not perform as needed (Blackfish). The animals can cry out as much as they want, but the language barriers between humans and animals prove to trump the instinctual need to return to the wild, despite how mentally and physically abusive this practice is.

Although there is no finite count of orcas in the wild, there have been approximately one-thousand orcas that have been identified in Alaskan waters alone (“Killer Whales”). There is no reason to try to save them because no immediate danger is within the population that is causing them to die out, so the only logical thing to do is to let them exist naturally. The biggest threat to their extinction is us since we keep taking them out of their natural habitat for our own entertainment. Raising awareness is nice in theory, but nothing is better than the orcas being able to live their life and reproduce as nature intended. The issue we should be focusing on should not be the orca itself, but the environment they live in. Orcas and other marine wildlife have to face a lifetime of pollution due to littering, waste dumping, and even air pollution on our behalf. If we want to see the marine population to rise again, we have to clean up the world they live so they could thrive beyond the life they are given now.