On May 28, 2016, it seemed as if the entire world was watching when Cincinnati zookeepers shot and killed a 17-year-old silverback gorilla named Harambe after a toddler climbed into his enclosure. As is the case with most news, the story quickly became sensationalized and consumers all across the nation chose sides. However, the issue isn't quite so black and white. We may be quick to join #TeamHarambe or #TeamToddler, but the root of the matter is less about whether the zookeeper's or the child's parents' actions are justifiable and more focused on the purpose and sanctity of zoos as a whole.

Zoos are much more than a fun place to visit with the family. First and foremost, they're centers for scientific study and research. Many endangered species are held in captivity in zoos in order to implement breeding programs in hopes of expanding the longevity of the animals. This is the case with Western lowland gorillas, the species to which Harambe belonged. Oftentimes, zoos are also non-profit organizations, which is why these facilities rely so heavily upon the funds provided by visitors to fuel conservation efforts. Herein lies two specific problems that extend far beyond the circumstances surrounding the Cinncinati zoo incident: the very existence of zoos and the lack of knowledge of its patrons.

I think it's fair to say that zoos would inevitably exist contrary to the course of human history because we as a species fear the unknown. That fear alone drives us to isolate and capture that which we do not understand in order to study it in an environment in which we deem safe, and safety seems to be the premise of zoos.

"Wanna see live exotic animals up close and in person with absolutely ZERO risk of harm? Visit your local zoo today!"

I'll sound the buzzer on that one because with zoos' ever-increasing attempts at making their efforts seem less cruel by implementing open-air habitats, the danger of these wild animals becomes more apparent. Unfortunately, the lack of education of the zoo's patrons does as well.

When people visit zoos, they view thick glass and steel bars encasing the exhibits as absolute safety, which often leads to a decrease in guidance and supervision. This seems to be a logical assumption. Of course, it's a public attraction, so the safety of the public has to be priority number one. Sure. But just because there's a fence around a pool doesn't mean you won't monitor your child to ensure that they won't climb over and fall in, right? Absolutely. The same logic can and should be applied to zoos. As a visitor, I think it's of the utmost importance to remember that the animals on display for your viewing pleasure did not choose to be held in captivity and that the circumstances surrounding their existence there is heavily reliant upon the actions of man. Deforestation, mining, poaching—these are all the effects of humanity, and the result is what you see when you enter a zoo. At this point in time, zoos are damage control. They're scrambling to fix the problems caused by man, and it's important that every zoo's patrons understand that.

It's incredibly unfortunate that such a beautiful, powerful creature lost its life at the Cincinnati zoo that day. Do I think that the zoo is to blame? No. Do I think that the child's parents are at fault? Absolutely not. The child is alive, and the gorilla is dead, but the issue is far greater than that. Before passing judgment on parenting skills and zoo keeping, we must first consider the circumstances that brought both human and animal here. We as a species ourselves can do something about this. Donate and/or participate in conservation efforts. Educate yourself. Travel in order to view these creatures in their natural habitats. Stop placing blame and help restore zoos to what they once were.