Zoos are a form of animal abuse. With the technology that we have today, filmmakers, photographers, and biologists making documentaries, there's no reason to subject animals to caging them for entertainment. If the purpose is to raise awareness or expand the public's knowledge, then documentaries fulfill most of the criteria. There needs to be a more substantial reason to justify "entertaining for kids" to supersede caging animals or animal abuse. The moment an animal is removed from its natural habitat to live in an enclosure, regardless of how big it is, it's unnatural and cruel. There's a difference from saving an endangered species or wounded animal, and then realeasing them, to keeping animals in an enclosure for entertainment.

I believe you're blurring the concepts of "zoos" with wildlife conservation or natural parks or animal research. The basic definition of "zoo" is "a park or facility where live wild animals are kept in enclosures so the public can view, study, and learn about them". I understand that this includes beneficial research, conservation, and awareness raising. My point is that a zoo always includes "animals are kept in enclosures so the public can view". Wildlife conservation, animal research, filmmaking, and photography in natural habitats or parks satisfy all the good outcomes zoos bring and more, without the enclosure's drawbacks. Keeping an animal from its natural habitat without a reasonable purpose or justification is animal abuse. I understand that this is anecdotal, but from what I can remember, going to zoos since I was 5 years old with school or parents, not knowing anything, was an overwhelming sense of discomfort from seeing animals caged or "in an enclosure". I'm also from a culture that hunts, sometimes for entertainment, which I obviously disagree with as well, but I've never felt that bad because I made sure to eat everything that I shot, and so does every hunter I've seen.

We can agree with "wild life conservation" or accommodating species that no longer have a habitat. A zoo might even be the best solution for multiple reasons, but this would be more of an exception. Both in terms of animals in this situation and also in terms of a zoo being a better solution than a natural park, for example. Again, please don't confuse a natural park or where people can go on safari, for example, with a zoo. The latter requires "animals kept in an enclosure for public view". And "enclosure", in this zoo definition, doesn't mean acres of land. No one goes on a safari to the zoo. Interpreting "enclosure" correctly in this context means, for example, the rough average for megafauna enclosures is 2000 to 5000 m², which is, on average, 0.05% of their natural habitat area. The concept of a zoo isn't vague, and there are many commonalities between them all over the world. The vast majority of animals in it aren't in their natural habitats; some of the same animals are commonly seen in most zoos, most aren't being researched and they're usually confined confined to a very small space. If we exclude the reasonable exceptions we both agree with, conservation and research that's not better served in "the wild", therefore, how is removing animals from their habitat and then confining them to, roughly speaking, 0.05% of the area they used to have is not abuse? To give an example of other measures being way more effective than zoos, rhinos were in many zoos all over the world, but what was very effective in reversing their extinction was the "South Africa's regulated white-rhino trophy hunting program". From less than 100 to more than 18000 nowadays. In conclusion, confinement without reason is immoral, and excluding exceptions, in most cases, zoos don't provide more effective funds, conservation, research, and awareness than natural parks, safaris, local conservation centers, documentaries, etc. do.