日本語訳お願いします。急いでます。
Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. Animals in the wild are, in practice, free neither in spase nor in time, nor in their personal relations. In theory an animal could pick up and go, defying all the social conventions and boundaries proper to its species. But such an event is less likely to happen than for a member of our own species, say a shopkeeper with all the usual ties ― to family, to friends, to society ― to drop everything and walk away from his life with only the spare change in his pockets and the clothes on his frame.
If human beings, boldest and most intelligent of creatures, won't wander from place to place, why would an animal, which is by temperament far more conservative?
For that is what animals are, conservative, one might even say reactionary.
The smallest changes can upset them.
They want things to be just so, day after day, month after month.
Surprises are highly disagreeable to them.
You see this in their spatial relations?
An animal inhabits its space, whether in a zoo or in the wild, 'in the same way chess pieces move about a chessboard.
There is no more happenstance, no more "freedom," involved in the whereabouts of a lizard or a bear or a deer than in the location of a knight on a chessboard.
Both speak of pattern and purpose.In the wild, animals stick to the same paths for the same pressing reasons, season after season.
In a zoo, if an animal is not in its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means something.
Animals are territorial.
That is the key to their minds.
Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild:the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water.
A biologically sound zoo enclosure is just another territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human territory.
Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild;so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spots on a leopard.
One might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it would opt for living in a zoo, since the major difference between a zoo and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the second.
Think about it yourself.
Would you rather be put up at the Ritz Hotel with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?
But animals are incapable of such discernment.
Within the limits of their nature, they make do with what they have.
お礼
早速のご回答ありがとうございました！ わかりやすいお答えで助かりました