1. Zoos do a good deal more than let people gawk at animals. Captive breeding programs run by zoos have saved a number of species from the brink of extinction.

2. Not many people can afford TVs large enough to show animals life size (for the distances typical for viewing distances typical in a zoo environment. In fact few could afford houses large enough to accommodate such a set even if they could afford the set itself.

3. VR is a long ways (generations) away from replacing zoos, even if the scenery is generated from cameras in a RL zoo. We’ll talk again when someone builds a VR system capable of handling all five senses.

I suspect that VR is going to take over from all these faux-fantasy sites. It does not require you to travel, it is arguably safer, is better for the environment, allows the right people to incorporate appropriate teaching moments into the experience, and protects the vulnerable from all sorts of unpleasantness that might be upsetting to delicate constitutions. All good progressive goals. And it leaves the real experience alone, to be savored by people who really appreciate it.

Jim,

Hugo’s point was that opaque barriers actually encourage parents to lift up small children so that they can see.

Some zoos are switching to transparent barriers that keep people out but allow small children to see into the exhibit while standing on the ground.

There was a barrier in place, Hugo. The mother stood her child on top of it. That’s where he fell from.

Apparently wild dog exhibit in Pitt is more dangerous, as this boy died.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-of-2-year-old-mauled-by-wild-dogs-settle-pittsburgh-zoo-lawsuit/

And the barriers to viewing the animals just keep getting higher, perhaps enticing even more parents to hoist their young higher in their arms… An arms race that ends only when no one can see the animals.