The Ethics of Tiger Farms
On February 23, CNN posted an article exploring the potential benefits of “tiger farms” – in which tigers “would be bred in captivity then culled for their body parts.” The main reason for this, proponents say, would be to provide enough tiger items to reduce the impact of poaching on tigers in the wild. Frequent Tiger poaching occurs in China because of the ancient belief that tiger bone helps to cure illnesses.
Basically, the article advocates destroying captive tigers to protect wild ones…destroy a tiger to save a tiger. While the basic concept of the idea can be understood (saving wildlife), what people fail to see is that tigers are tigers — and destroying some will not necessarily help to save others, especially when obtaining wild tigers is, in a sense, free of charge.
The article cites Keshav Varma, leader of the World Bank’s Global Tiger Initiative’s statement “that legalized tiger farming is ‘too great a gamble for the world to take. We cannot know for sure if tiger farming will work. And if it does not work the downside risks are just too high– irreversible harm.'”
This irreversible harm comes not only from telling people that it is ok to kill tigers for their skin and bones, but also from allowing people to legally kill defenseless animals, purposefully bred to be slaughtered to save their tiger relatives. Instead of exacerbating the destruction of an endangered species, people should be advocating to build the species back to a healthy level.
These tiger farms bear an eerie resemblance to “clone farms” discussed in Never Let Me Go and Brave New World. It also connects to Moreau’s ideas in The Island of Dr. Moreau that manipulation and control, including slaughter, of animals is acceptable and without moral consequence. Certainly Moreau sees the impact of societal dangers posed by his vivisection techniques, but what these tiger farms fail to see is that they are not solving the environmental problem of tiger extinction, they are allowing society to believe that this kind of solution is justifiable.
-Elizabeth S.
Genetics and Literature 
This is a really interesting comparison that you’ve made. What a bizarre idea, to place wildlife in captivity and then justify its destruction in order to save the wildlife. But you’re right, it is very much like Never Let Me Go; these tigers are brought into the world with the purpose to die. It raises similar questions about the ethics of a life for a life and the quality of life for the doomed, etc. Thanks for your post.
Whoever wrote that article needs to read Never Let Me Go! To me, creating a tiger to kill it to save another tiger is kind of counterproductive. They should just leave them alone, or if they want to breed them in captivity, don’t kill them for their parts!