There appears to be a problem of why very similar risks are perceived very differently by people. The easy way is to call it innate morality and blame it on everything from evolution to religion and culture. The difficult way is to extract a subset of that problem that seems interesting, like loss-aversion, and to say something non-trivial about it. The difficult way has already been explored byDaniel Kahnemann and Amos Tversky for which Kahnemann got the Nobel in 2002.
So, why would someone persist with the first approach? Possibly, because for someone who has dealt with zoos and monkeys all his life, every problem in life seems to have its solution in evolutionary biology.